Jamil Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code - section 420 and criminal procedure code--section 482--investigation incomplete when bail granted--sessions judge made observation that no offence is made out under section 420--held, observation should not be taken into consideration.;application allowed - - 1. i would like to observe that when case under section 494, ipc is compoundable, the offence under section 498a, ipc which is connected with the case of offence under section 494, ipc should also be made compoundable with the permission of the court.g.k. sharma, j.1. i would like to observe that when case under section 494, ipc is compoundable, the offence under section 498a, ipc which is connected with the case of offence under section 494, ipc should also be made compoundable with the permission of the court.2. this petition under section 482, cr.p.c. praying that the remark mentioned in para 5 of the order dated 3-5-1989 passed by the sessions judge kota, be impugned.3. jamil ahmed filed a complaint under sections 416 to 419, 120b & 420, ipc against the non-petitioners nos. 2 & 3. the learned magistrate forwarded the complaint under section 156, clause 3, criminal procedure code to the police station, kaithooni pole, kota for necessary action. the case was registered at the police station and investigation started. the non-petitioners nos. 2 & 3 moved an application under section 438, cr.p.c. for anticipatory bail and the learned sessions judge vide impugned order dated 3-5-1989 granted the application but in para 5 of the order he observed that 'no offence under section 420, ipc is made out looking to the facts of the case.' the observation of the lower court was on the basis of the application for anticipatory bail. there was no paper of the investigation before the learned sessions judge as the investigation was still incomplete and making his mind he observed offence under section 420, india penal code was not made out made out is the presumption of the learned sessions judge. the investigation was still going on, the papers were not before the sessions judge, he could not have passed this observation. in further investigation it is possible that a case under section 420, ipc can be made out so before completing the investigation the learned sessions judge should not have observed this in para 5 of the order. therefore, the observation in this para 5 of the impugned order is redundant and it is directed that the investigating officer should not take into consideration this observation in para 5 of the order dated 3-5-1989 by the learned sessions judge while investigating the case and putting the challan. such observation should not be made in the order on bail applications. with this observation the application under section 482, cr.p.c. is allowed.