DHARMATMA SINGHversusHARMINDER SINGH & ORS.

                    [2011] 6 S.C.R. 355


                   DHARMATMA SINGH                              A
                             v.
                HARMINDER SINGH & ORS.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1126 of 2011)
                       MAY 10, 2011
                                                                B
     [R.V. RAVE~NpRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 173(2), (8) and
482 - Report of police officer on completion of investigation
- Cognizance of offence by the Magistrate - Scope of - After C
investigation, police filed two challans before the Judicial
Magistrate, one against the appellant and others for
commission of offences u/ss. 452, 323, 326, 506 rw s. 34 /PC
and other cha/Ian against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and others
for commission of offences u/ss. 342, 323, 324, 148 /PC - D
After further investigation, further report made by
Superintendent of Police stating that respondent Nd. 1 caused
injuries to the appellant and others in self-defence, thus, the
cross-case against the respondent No. 1 to be cancelled -
Said report submitted to Additional Director General of Police E
who opined that the decision of the case should be left to the
Court - However, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application
uls. 482 in the High Court praying for quashing of the criminal
proceedings initiated against them - Application allowed by
the High Court - On appeal, held: The said further report F
made by Superintendent of Police has to be forwarded to the
Magistrate and it was for the Magistrate to apply judicial mind
to the facts stated in the reports submitted under sub-sections
(2) and (8) of s.173, and to form an opinion whether to take
or not to take cognizance against respondent No. 1 after G
considering the objections, if any, of the appellant - The
Magistrate did not apply his mind to the merits of the reports
filed u/s. 173 - Exercise of power by the High Court uls. 482
was at an interlocutory stage and was not warranted, thus, order
passed by the High Court is set aside.                           H
                             355
    356    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 6 S.C.R.

A       An F.l.R. was registered against the appellant under
   Sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 326 read with Section 34 IPC
   on information furnished by respondent No.1. The
   appellant gave a different version of the incident to the
  police. After investigation, the police filed two challans
s before the Judicial Magistrate, one against the appellant,
   his father 'MS' and 'BS' that they had committed offences
   under Sections 452, 323, 326, 506 read with Section 34
   IPC and other against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and others
  that they had committed offences under Sections 342,
c 323, 324, 148 IPC. On an application by the prosecution
  before the Judicial Magistrate, the prosecution was
  granted permission for further investigation. The further
  investigation was carried out. The Superintendent of
  Police submitted the report that respondent No.1 gave
  some injuries to the appellant and others for his self-
0
  defence and thus, no proceedings could be initiated
  against respondent N"o.1 and the cross case registered
  against respondent No.1 should be cancelled. The said
  report was submitted to the Additional Director General
  of Police who opined that as the challans had already
E been filed against the respondents in the cross-case, the
  decision of the case should be left to the Court. However,
  before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate could apply its
  mind and take a decision on the original challan against
  respondents No. 1 and 2 and on the report of further
F investigation recommending dropping of the criminal
  proceedings against them, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed
  an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High
  Court praying for quashing of DOR and the challan filed
  against them by the police in the Court of Judicial
G Magistrate. The High Court quashed the criminal ,
  proceedings initiated pursuant to the DOR. Therefore, the
  appellant filed the instant appeal.

       Allowing the appeal, the Court
H
DHARMATMA SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. 357

      HELD: 1.1. A reading of provisions of sub-section (2)      A
of Section 173, Cr.P.C. would show that as soon as the
investigation is completed, the officer in charge of ·the
police station is required to forward the police report to
the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the
offence stating inter a/ia whether an offence appears to         B
have been committed and if so, by whom. Sub-section (8)
of Section 173 further provides that where upon further
investigation, the officer in charge of the police station
obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall
also forward to the Magistrate a further report regarding        c
such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of
Section 173, Cr.P.C., shall, as far as may be, .apply in
relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation
to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). Thus, the
report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 after the initial
                                                                 0
investigation as well as the further report under sub-
section (8) of Section 173 after further investigation
constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.
It is clear from Section 190 (b) of the Cr.P.C. that it is the   E
Magistrate, who has the power to take cognizance of any
offence upon a "police report" of such facts which
constitute an offence. Thus, when a police report is
forwarded to the Magistrate either under sub-section (2)
or under sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr.P.C., it is for
the Magistrate to apply his mind to the police report and        F
take a view· whether to take cognizance of an offence or
not to take cognizance of offence against an accused
person. Where the police report forwarded to the
Magistrate under Section 173 (2) Cr.P .C. states that a
person has committed an offence, but after investigation         G
the further report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. states that
the person has not committed the offence, it is for the
Magistrate to form an opinion whether the facts, set out
in the two reports, make out an offence committed by the
person. [Paras 9 and 10] [367-G-H; 368-A-G)                      H
     358     · SUPRbv'IE COL.<T REPORTS             (2011] 6 S.C.R ..
                  '                  '   -   .. .              .

 A        1.2. Section 482 .Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers ··
     of the High Court to make such orders as may be
     necessary to give effect to any· order under the Code .or . ·
     to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise.
     to secure the ends of justice. [Para 13] [370-Cl · · ·
 B
         · R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866,
     referred to.                                ·    ·

            2: ·In the facts of the instant case, the police In its
       report submitted to the Judicial Magistrate that on
   C 02.02.2006 he had filed two challans, one against the
       appellant, his father 'MS' and 'BS'· stating that they had
       committed offences under Sections 452, 323, 326, 506
       read with Section 34 IPC and the other challan against
       the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and some others stating that
   D they had comrnitted offences under Sections '342; 323,
       324, 148 IPC .. Pursuant to permission granted by the
       Ma-gistrate on 27.07.2006 for further investigation, a further
       report has been made by the Superintendent of Police
       stating· that respondent No.1 for hls self-defence had
   E . caused- injuries to the appellant and others <l'rid thus, the
       cross-case against the respondent No.1 is requiied to be
       cancelled; This further report has to be forwarded to ttie
       Magistrate and it was for the Magistrate to apply judicial
       mind to the facts stated in the reports submitted Li~der
   F sub-sections (2) and (8) respectively of Section 173,
       Cr.P.C., and to form an opinion whether to take
       cognizance or not to take cognizance against the
       respondent No.1 after considering the objections, if any,
       of the complainant,. namely, the appellant. As. the
       Magistrate did not apply his mind to the merits of the
   G reports filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C., the exercise' of
       power by the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., was
       at an interlocutory stage and ·was not warrante.d in ttie
       facts of the instant case. Thus, the impugned o,rder is set
.. H   aside.   The police
                        .  would
                             . -· forward
                                       , the further report
                                                        . . of.the
DHARMATMA SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. 359


Superintendent of Police, to the Magistrate concerned           A
and the Magistrate would apply his mind to the police
report already forwarded to him and the further report of
further investigation forwarded to him and take a final
decision in accordance with law after considering the
objections, if any, of the appellant against the further        B
report of further investigation. [Para 12 to 14) [369-F-H;
370-A-B; 371-E-G]

     Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC
117; Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh         C
Gill and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 309 - relied on.
                    Case Law Reference:
    AIR 1968 SC 117          Relied on.          · Para 12
    AIR 1996 SC 309          Relied on.             Para 12     D
    AIR 1960 SC 866          Referred to.           Para 13
    CRIMINAl APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1126 of 2011.
                                                                E
    From the Judgment & Order dated 25.3.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc.
No. 10664 of 2007.

    D.P. Singh and Sanjay Jain for the Appellant.
                                                                F
    Sunil Bhatt, S.S. Ray, Rakhi Ray, Anil Grover, Noopur
Singhal and Kuldip Singh for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                G
    A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.
     2. This is an appeal by way of Special Leave against the
order dated 25.03.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and
rlaryana in Criminal Misc. No.10664-M of 2007 quashing a
criminal proceeding against respondents Nos. 1 and 2.           H
    360       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A        3. The relevant facts briefly are that on 12.12.2004, F.l.R.
   No.276 was registered at Police Station Sadar, District
   Ludhiana, against the appellant under Sections 452, 324, 323,
   506, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
   short 'the IPC') on information furnished by respondent No.1.
B The allegations in the F.l.R. were that on 12.12.2004, at about
   8.00 a.m., the respondent No.1 and his mother were on their
   plot of land and they had engaged mason and labours for
   erecting walls on the plot when the appellant with others came
   armed with weapons and started beating the respondent No.1
c and his mother and as a result the respondent No.1 and his
   mother suffered injuries and were admitted in the hospital. On
   13.12.2004, the appellant gave a different version of the
   incident on 12.12.2004 to the police alleging that when he along
  with his father Mohan Singh reached the plot, they saw the
D respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with others erecting walls on
   the plot and when Mohan Singh stopped the mason saying that
   the plot was a disputed one, respondent no.2 gave a /a/kara
   and all others attacked Mohan Singh and the appellant caused
   injuries on them and as a result they have been admitted to the
E hospital. After investigation, the police filed two challans on
  02.02.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
   Ludhiana. Under one challan, the appellant, his father Mohan
  Singh and Bhupinder Singh were charge-sheeted for offences
  under Secti~ns 452, 323, 326, 506 read with Section 34 of the
   IPC and under the other challan, respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
F some others were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections
  342, 323, 324, 148 of the IPC. On 22.03.2006, the respondent
  No.1 submitted an application to the Additional Director
  General of Police, Crime Branch, Punjab, pursuant to which the
  prosecution moved an application before the Judicial
G Magistrate, First Class on 19.07 .2006 for permission to
  investigate further in the case and on 27.07.2006 the Judicial
  Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, granted such permission to
  the prosecution.

H         4. After further investigation, the Superintendent of Police,
DHARMATMA SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. 361
             [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
City-II, Ludhiana, submitted his report to the Deputy Inspector      A
General of Police, Ludhiana Range. The relevant portion of the
report of the Superi~tendent of Police, City-II, Ludhiana, which
contains his conclusions after further investigation, is extracted
herein below:
                                                                B
     "I found during my investigation that Mohan Singh, son of
     Shri Sher Singh , Dharmatma Singh, Harpal Singh, Jagdev
     Singh and Bhupinder Singh, sons of Mohan Singh,
     residents of Pullanwal, sold one plot of 1 kanal 13 marlas
    on 09.03.2004 to Bharpur Sigh, Harnek Singh, sons of C
    Balbir Singh, Jagjit Singh, son of Amarjit Singh, Gurcharan
     Singh, son of Hari Dass and Jagdev Singh, son of Harpal
    Singh, resident of Phulanawal through registered sale deed
    vasikha No.23895 and the mutation No.10940 duly
    entered in the name of purchasing party. The purchasing
    party Harminder Singh @ Hindri, son of Shri Harnek Singh D
    on 12.12.2004 was constructing 4 walls on this plot by
    employing labours and mason and while so in the
    meantime Dharmatma Sigh, Bhupinder Singh, sons of ·
    Mohan Singh and Mohan Singh came present on this plot
    and they stopped forcibly Harminder Singh not to erect 4 E
    walls and when Harminder Singh @ Hindri did not stop,
    they started beating Harminder Singh @ Hindri with their
    weapons and he ultimately for his self defence ran towards
    his house and all these three persons while following
    Harminder Singh entered his house. Smt. Kamaljit Kaur, F
    mother of Harminder Singh was also present in the house
    and in this incident, she got also various injuries. During
    this incident, Mann Singh, Bharpur Singh, son of Balbir
    Singh also come present at the place of occurrence, after
    hearing the raula of Harminder Singh @ Hindri and his G
    mother Kamaljit kaur and none was other present at the
    place of seen and Dharmatma Singh party have wrongly
    mentioned the name of other persons in the cross case.
    In this incident, Dharmatma Singh also got some injuries
    and as a result of that an.? as per M.L.R., a case under H
    362       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A         Sections 323, 324 IPC alleged to have been made out
          and the injuries, which got by Harminder Singh @ Hindri
          etc., a case under Sections 323, 324, 326 IPC is made
          out. Since Dharmatama Singh, Bhupinder Singh and
          Mohan Singh while entering into the house of Harminder
B         Singh @ Hindri gave injury to Harminder Singh @ Hindri
          and the aforesaid Harminder Singh for his self defence
          gave some injuries to Dharmatma Singh etc. and the same
          shall come under the definition of self defence and,
          therefore, no proceeding/case can be initiated against
c         Harminder Singh @ Hindri party and therefore, the cross
          case as registered against Harminder Singh @ Hindri
          party is required to be cancelled. And if your goodstilf
          agree with the report, please necessary orders be issued
          in this regard to S.H.O. Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana.
D                                                              S~
                                                      (D. P. Singh)
                                            S. P. City-II, Ludhiana"
  It will be clear from the aforesaid extract from the report of '
  further investigation that Superintendent of Police, City II,
E Ludhiana, was of the opinion that respondent No.1 gave some
  injuries to the appellant and others for his self-defence and such
  injuries come under the definition of right of private defence and,
  therefore, no proceedings could be initiated against respondent
  No.1 and the case registered against respondent No.1 should
F be cancelled.

       5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana
  Range, to whom the aforesaid report was submitted, referred
  the matter to the Additional Director General of Police, Crime
G Branch, Punjab, Chandigarh, and the Additional Director
  General of Police was of the opinion that as the challans -had
  already been filed against the respondents in the cross-case,
  the decision of the case should be left to the Court. The opinion·
  of the Additional Director General of Police as stated in his
H communication to the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
  Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, is quoted hl;!rein below:
 DHARMATMA SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. 363
              [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
    "After thoroughly investigating this case, finding has        A
    already been recorded at ADGP/Crime level that Man
    Singh, Harminder Singh party did not cause injuries to
    other party in self defence. In the main case and cross
    case, challan has already been presented in the court.
    During further investigation, no new evidence came on         B
    record. In other words, report of S.P. City I, Ludhiana is
    not based on any such evidence which was not available
    at the time of inquiry conducted by the Crime Wing. So,
    the cross case does not deserve to be cancelled. By
    ignoring tl:le above report, decision of the case should be   c
    left to the court.

                                                          Sd/-

                         For Addi. Director General of Police,
                                                                  D
                                  Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh"

     6. However, before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, L1.Jdhiana, could apply its mind and take a decision
on the original challan against respondents No. 1 and 2 and
on the report of further investigation recommending dropping E
of the criminal proceedings against them, respondent Nos. 1
and 2 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.10664-M of 2007
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 17.02.2007 in the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana praying for quashing of DOR No.15 dated
13.12.2004 and the challan filed against them by the police in F
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. After considering
the report of further investigation recommending dropping of the
criminal proceedings against respondent No.1 and others, the
High Court passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2008
quashing the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the DOR G
No.15 dated 13.12.2004 and further directing that the criminal
proceedings against the appellant at the behest of the
respondent No.1 initiated pursuant to the F.l.R. No. 276 dated
12.12.2004 shall not be affected.
                                                                  H
    364      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A       7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
  power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only
  in the exceptional circumstances and that the High Court should
  not have exercised this power and quashed the criminal
  proceedings against the respondents No.1 and 2 when the
B Magistrate was )'et to exercise his judicial mind under Section
  190 of the Cr.P.C. to the police reports filed under Section 173
  of the Cr.P.C. He submitted that the Magistrate before whom
  the entire records were placed including the evidence collected
  during the investigation was in a better position to appreciate
C the facts and circumstances of the case and pass orders
  whether to take cognizance of the offences against the
  respondents No.1 and 2 registered pursuant to the DOR No.15
  dated 13.12.2004 on the basis of information furnished by the
  appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
  on the other hand, relied on the report of the Superintendent of
0
   Police, City-II, Ludhiana, recommending dropping of the
  criminal proceedings against them and supported the
  impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal
  proceedings against them.

E        8. For deciding the issue, we must first refer to the
    provisions of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. under which the police
    submits reports after investigation and after further investigation,
    Section 190 of the Cr. P.C. under which the Magistrate takes
    cognizance of an offence upon a police report and Section 482
F   of the Cr.P.C. under which the High Court exercises its powers
    to quash the criminal proceedings. These three provisions of
    the Cr.P.C. are extracted below:
          "173. Report of police officer on completion of
          investigation. (1) Every investigation under this Chapter
G
          shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
                [(1A) The Investigation in relation to rape of a·child
                may be completed within three months from the
                date on which the information was recorded by the
H               officer in charge of the police station.]
DHARMATMA SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. 365
             [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
          (2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in A
          charge of the police station shall forward to a
          Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the
          offence on a police report, a report in the form
          prescribed by the State Government, stating-
                                                                 8
          (a) the names of the parties;

          (b) the nature of the information;

          (c) the names of the persons who appear to be
          acquainted with the circumstances of the case;         c
          (d) whether any offence appears to have been
          committed and, if so, by whom ;

          (e) whether the accused has been arrested;
                                                                 D
          (f) whether he has been released on his bond and,
          if so, weather with or without sureties;

         (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under
         section 170.
                                                                 E
         [(h) whether the report of medical examination of the
         woman has been attached where investigation
         relates to an offence under section 376, 376A,
         3768, 376C or 3760 of the Indian Penal Code (45
         of 1860)]                                               F
   (ii) The officer shall also communicate; in such manner as
   may be prescribed by the State Government, the action
   taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information
   relating to the commission of the offence was first given. G
  (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed
  under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which
  the State Government by general or special order so
  directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may,
                                                                 H
    366          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 6 S.C.R.


A         pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in
          charge of the police station to make further investigation.

          (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this
          section that the accused has been released on his bond,
          the Magistrate shall make such order- for the discharge
B
          of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.

          (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which
          section 170 applies, the police officer shall. forward to the
          Magistrate alongwith the report-
c
                  (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on
                  which the prosecution proposes to rely other than
                  those already sent to the Magistrate during
                  investigation;
D                  (b) the statements-racorded under section 161 of
                   all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to
                   examine as its witnesses.

          (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such
E         statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the
          proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not
          essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in
          the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the
          statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate
F         to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the
          accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

          (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it
          convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies
          of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section
G         (5).

          (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude
          further investigation in respect of an offence after a report
          under subsection (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate
H         and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge
DHARMATMA SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. 367
             [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
     of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or         A
     documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further
     report or reports regarding such evidence in the form
     prescribed ; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6)
     shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or
     reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under   B
     sub-section (2).

     190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrate. - (1)
     Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate
     of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class      C
     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;
                                                                     D
            (b) upon a police report of such facts;

            (c) upon information received from any person other
            than a police officer, or upon his ow~ knowledge,
            that such offence has been committed!.
                                                                     E
     (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.
                                                                     F
     482. Saving of inherent power of High Court.- Nothing
     in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
     powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be
     necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or
     to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise       G
     to secure the ends of justice."
     9. A reading of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section
173, Cr.P.C. would show that as soon as the investigation is
completed, the officer in charge of the police station is required
to forward the police report to the Magistrate empowered to          H
    368     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A take cognizance of the offence stating inter alia whether an
  offence appears to have been committed and if so, by whom.
  Sub-section (8) of Section 173 further provides that where upon
  further investigation, the officer in charge of the potice station
  obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also
B forward to the Magistrate a further report regarding such
  evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 173,
  Cr.P.C., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report
  or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under
  sub-section (2). Thus, the report under sub-section (2) of
c Section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further
  report under sub-section (8) of Section 173 after further
  investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded
  to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the
  offence. It will also be clear from Section 190 (b) of the Cr.P.C.
  that it is the Magistrate, who has the power to take cognizance
0
  of any offence upon a "police report" of such facts which
  constitute an offence. Thus, when a police report is forwarded
  to the Magistrate either under sub-section (2) or under sub-
  section (8) of Section 173, Cr.P .C., it is for the Magistrate to
E apply his mind to the police report and take a view whether to
  take cognizance of an offence or not to take cognizance of
  offence against an accused person.

         10. It follows that where the police report forwarded to the
    Magistrate under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. states that a
F person has committed an offence, but after investigation the
    further report under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. states that
    the person has not committed the offence, it is for the
    Magistrate to form an opinion whether the facts, set out in the
    two reports, make out an offence committed by the person.
G . This interpretation has given by this Court in Abhinandan Jha
    & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 SC 117] to the provisions
    of Section 173 and Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure
    Code, 1898, which were the same as in the Criminal
    Procedure Code, 1973. In Abhinandan Jha (supra), para 15
H at page 122 of the AIR this Court observed:
DHARMATMA SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. 369
             [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
     " ... The police, after such investigation, may submit a         A
     charge-sheet, or, again submit a final report, depending
     upon the further investigation made by them. If ultimately,
     the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts, set out in
     the final report, constitute an offence, he can take
     cognizance of the offence, under Section 190(1)(b),              B
     notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police,
     expressed in the final report."

      11. After referring to the law laid down in Abhinandan Jha
(supra) this Court has further held in Mrs. Rupan Deal Bajaj &        C
Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. [AIR 1996 SC 309] that
where the police in its report of investigation or further
investigation recommends discharge of the accused, but the
complainant seeks to satisfy the Court that a case for taking
cognizance was made out, the Court must consider the
objections of the complainant and if it overrules such objections,    D
it is just and desirable that the reasons for overruling the
objections of the complainant be recorded by the Court and this
was necessary because the Court while exercising power under
Section 190, Cr.P.C. whether to take cognizance or not to take
cognizance exercises judicial discretion.                             E

     12. In the facts of the present case, the police in its report
submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, on
02.02.2006 had filed two challans, one against the appellant,
his father Mohan Singh and Bhupinder Singh stating that they          F
had committed offences under Sections 452, 323, 326, 506
read with Section 34 of the IPC and the other challan against
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and some others stating that they
had committed offences under Sections 342, 323, 324, 148 of
the IPC. Pursuant to permission granted by the learned                G
Magistrate on 27.07.2006 for further investigation, a further
report has been made by the Superintendent of Police, City-II,
Ludhiana, stating that respondent no.1 for his self-defence had
caused injuries to the appellant and others and hence the cross-
case against the respondent no.1 is required to be cancelled.
                                                                      H
   370      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 6 S.C.R.


A This further report has to be forwarded to the learned
  Magistrate and as has been held by this Court in Abhinandan
  Jha (supra) and Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj (supra) it was for the
  learned Magistrate to apply judicial mind to the facts stated in
  the reports submitted under sub-sections (2) and (8)
B respectively of Section 173, Cr.P.C., and to form an opinion
  whether to take cognizance or not to take cognizance against
  the respondent no.1 after considering the objections, if any, of
  the complainant, namely, the appellant.

        13. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers
C of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary
  to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse
  of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
  justice. It has been held by this Court in R. P. Kapurv. State of
  Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] that Section 561-A of the Criminal
D Procedure Code, 1898 (which corresponds to Section 482 of
  the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) saves the inherent power
  of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary
  to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse
  of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
E justice and such inherent power cannot be exercised in regard
  to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the
   Code and therefore where the Magistrate has not applied his
  mind under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to the merits of the
   reports and passed order, the High Court ought not to consider
F a request for quashing the proceedings. In the case of R. P.
   Kapur (supra) on 10.12.1958, M.L. Sethi lodged a First
   Information Report against R.P. Kapur and alleged that he and
   his mother-in-law had committed offences under Sections 420-
   109, 114 and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code. R.P. Kapur
G moved the Punjab High Court under Section 561-A of the Code
   of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated
   by the First Information Report. When the petition of R.P. Kapur
   was pending in the High Court, the police report was submitted
   under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and the High Court held that no case
H had been made out for quashing the proceedings under Section
 DHARMATMA SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. 371
              [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and dismissed                A
the petition. R. P. Kapur carried an appeal by way of Special
Leave to this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal for inter
alia the following reasons:

       " ... In the present case the magistrate before whom the
                                                                        B
       police report has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has
       yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report
       and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his
       request for the quashing of the proceedings is not at the
       present stage covered by any specific provision of the
       Code. It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of   C
       the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in
       a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process
       of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
       Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an
       accused person must be tried under the provisions of the         D
       Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere
       with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage ... "

As we have found in the present case that learned M_agistrate
had not applied his mind to the merits of the reports filed under       E
Section 173, Cr.P .C., we are of the considered opinion that the
exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482,
Cr.P.C., was at an interlocutory stage and was not warranted
in the facts of this case.

     14. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned          F
order dated 25.03.2008 is set aside. The police will forward
the further report of the Superintendent of Police, City-II,
Ludhiana, to the Magistrate concerned and the learned
Magistrate will apply his mind to the police report ·already
forwarded to him and the further report of further investigation        G
forwarded to him and take a final decision in accordance with
law after considering the objections, if any, of the appellant
against the further repor:t of further investigation.

N.J.                                             Appeal allowed.        H