# Rajendra Singh & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 5
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 602 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-singh-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45847
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A.G.A.

A. Final Report and further investigationFinal Report submitted-on the basis of dying
declaration-contention of complainant-that there
was no dying declaration -it is manufactured
and frivolous-intact in the case diary-but Final
Report
was
submitted-statement
of
complainant-not
investigated-Magistrate
rejected final report-with a direction of further
investigation-no illegality.

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-9)

Held, In the present case death by burn and
injury caused by burn during treatment at
Hospital within nine months of marriage is
there. F.I.R. is with contention of dowry death.
It was investigated. Final report was submitted
and this conclusion was on the basis of
statement made by deceased in her dying
declaration. The contention of complainant was
intact in case diary, but the final report was
submitted. It was submitted by complainant that
this dying declaration was manufactured and
frivolous. There was no dying declaration of
deceased. But this was not investigated by the 4
investigating officer. Under all above facts and
circumstances, final report was rejected with a
direction for further investigation and this order
was with no illegality or irregularity or in
irregular exercise of jurisdiction by Magistrate.
(Para 8)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

6 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
5
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.
----------
(2020)06ILR A5
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Criminal Revision No. 602 of 2020

Rajendra Singh & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Final Report and further investigationFinal Report submitted-on the basis of dying
declaration-contention of complainant-that there
was no dying declaration -it is manufactured
and frivolous-intact in the case diary-but Final
Report
was
submitted-statement
of
complainant-not
investigated-Magistrate
rejected final report-with a direction of further
investigation-no illegality.

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-9)

Held, In the present case death by burn and
injury caused by burn during treatment at
Hospital within nine months of marriage is
there. F.I.R. is with contention of dowry death.
It was investigated. Final report was submitted
and this conclusion was on the basis of
statement made by deceased in her dying
declaration. The contention of complainant was
intact in case diary, but the final report was
submitted. It was submitted by complainant that
this dying declaration was manufactured and
frivolous. There was no dying declaration of
deceased. But this was not investigated by the 4
investigating officer. Under all above facts and
circumstances, final report was rejected with a
direction for further investigation and this order
was with no illegality or irregularity or in
irregular exercise of jurisdiction by Magistrate.
(Para 8)

List of cases cited: -

1. Minu Kumari Vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 4 SCC
399

2. Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(1997) 4 Supreme 211

3. Sri B.S.S.V.V.V. Maharaj Vs. State of U.P.
1999 Cr.L.J. 3661 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam,, J.)

1. This Criminal Revision u/s 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by Rajendra Singh,
Vimla Devi, Pankaj Singh and Km.
Ranjana against order dated 04.12.2019
passed by learned C.J.M., Chitrakoot, in
Final Report Case No. 406 of 2018 arising
out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2018, u/s
498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/ 4 D.P.
Act,
P.S.
Mau,
District
Chitrakoot,
whereby learned Magistrate has rejected
final report and ordered for further
investigation.

2. Learned counsel for revisionists
argued that it was a case of accident,
wherein deceased was taken to hospital and
was hospitalized there at. But unfortunately
she succumbed to above burn injury. Her
dying
declaration
was
recorded
by
Executive Magistrate, wherein nothing
incriminating was against the revisionists
and on the basis of it, final report was
submitted. However, protest petition was
filed by informant and on the basis of
contention of informant, the Magistrate
passed the impugned order. Whereas the
Magistrate was not competent to take
prosecution version at the time of disposal
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of final report supplemented by protest
petition. Rather it was case diary and
contents thereof, which was to be taken
into consideration. The Magistrate may
proceed under Chapter XV of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
by
examining
complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and his
witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. But he cannot
direct for further investigation particularly
upon a particular fact. But in this regard too
above impugned order has been passed.
Hence this revision.

3. Learned AGA has vehemently
opposed the revision.

4. Section 190 Cr.P.C. provides for
cognizance of offence by Magistrate.
Section 190 Cr.P.C. reads as under:

"190. Cognizance of offences by
Magistrates.

(1) Subject to the provisions of
this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first
class, and any Magistrate of the second
class specially empowered in this behalf
under
sub-
section
(2),
may
take
cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such
facts;

(c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer,
or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate
may empower any Magistrate of the second
class to take cognizance under sub- section
(1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try."

5. Apex Court in Minu Kumari Vs.
State of Bihar, (2006) 4 SCC 399 has
propounded that a Magistrate can ignore
the
conclusion
arrived
at
by
the
Investigating Officer and independently
apply his mind to the facts emerging from
the investigation and take cognizance of the
case. If he thinks fit and exercise his power
under section 190(1)(b). The Magistrate is
not bound in such situation to follow the
procedure laid down in sections 200 and
202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a
case under section 190(1)(a) though it is
open to him to act under section 200 or
section 202 also.

6. Section 173 Cr.P.C. provides for a
report of police officer on completion of
investigation. This report may be either a
charge sheet or a final report and if final
report has been submitted, the Magistrate is
not bound by conclusion drawn by the
Investigating Officer. If evidence collected
in case diary makes some offence then the
cognizance may be taken as per section 190
Cr.P.C. of those offences. If investigation is
not fair or in accordance with facts given in
investigation then final report may be
rejected and a direction for further
investigation may be given or final report
may be accepted. Even if police report i.e.
result of investigation under Chapter XII of
Cr.P.C. is a conclusion that an investigating
officer draws on the basis of materials
collected during investigation and such
conclusion can only form the basis of a
competent court to take cognizance there
upon under section 190(1)(b) of the Code
and to proceed with the case for trial, and it
cannot rely on the investigation or the
result thereof, as has been propounded by
Apex Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (1997) 4 Supreme 211.

7. Apex Court in Sri B.S.S.V.V.V.
Maharaj Vs. State of U.P. 1999 Cr.L.J.
3661 (SC) has propounded that power of
police to conduct further investigation,
6 All. Sri Deepak Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
7
even after laying final report is recognized
under section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

8. In the present case death by burn
and injury caused by burn during treatment
at Hospital within nine months of marriage
is there. F.I.R. is with contention of dowry
death. It was investigated. Final report was
submitted and this conclusion was on the
basis of statement made by deceased in her
dying declaration. The contention of
complainant was intact in case diary, but
the final report was submitted. It was
submitted by complainant that this dying
declaration
was
manufactured
and
frivolous. There was no dying declaration
of deceased. But this was not investigated
by the investigating officer. Under all
above facts and circumstances, final report
was rejected with a direction for further
investigation and this order was with no
illegality or irregularity or in irregular
exercise of jurisdiction by Magistrate.

9. Accordingly, this revision is
dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this revision is
dismissed.
----------
(2020)06ILR A7
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1008 of 1996

Sri Deepak Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri H.K. Sharma, Sri Ankit Agarwal, Sri Bharat Garg

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Chief Medical Officer granted
sanction by signing virtually printed order-only
name, address and authorization inserted-rest
order printed-no failure of justice-sanction order
legal.

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-9)

List of cases cited:-

1. State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Ishwar
Piraji Kalpatri and Others 1996 (1) SCC 542

2. State of Orissa Vs. Mrutunjaya Panda 1998
(2) SCC 414

3. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harishankar
Bhagwan Pd. Tripathi 2010 (8) SCC 655

4.State of Bihar and Others Vs. Rajmangal Ram
and Others 2014 (11) SCC 388,

5. State by Police Inspector Vs. T. Venkatesh
Murthy (2004) 7 SCC 763

6.State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Virender Kumar
Tripathi (2009) 15 SCC 533

7. Neera Yadav Vs. C.B.I. (Bharat Singh) 2006
(ILR)1 All 490

8. Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.K. Sehgal
and Another 1999 (8) SCC 501

9. Mohd. Waris and Others Vs. State 2019 (3)
Crimes 476 (All)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bharat Garg, learned
counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for
State of U.P.

2. This criminal revision under
Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed
aggrieved by judgment and order dated
23.07.1996. The IXth Additional Chief