Taking cognizance on protest petition without examining negative Final Report unsustainable: Rajasthan High Court

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an order of cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, taking up offences under Sections 366, 376 and 384 IPC, holding that a Magistrate who chooses to disagree with a negative Final Report must record cogent reasons reflecting conscious application of mind to the material collected during investigation — and that reliance solely on a protest petition is no substitute for such a judicial exercise.

Justice Farjand Ali observed that while a Magistrate is not bound by the Investigating Officer’s conclusions and possesses ample jurisdiction to take cognizance notwithstanding submission of a negative Final Report, the lawful exercise of that jurisdiction demands a structured, reasoned process of comparative evaluation — not a mechanical acceptance of the protest petition version.

“Judicial discretion, howsoever wide, cannot be exercised in an unstructured or mechanical manner. The order must manifest a process of reasoning and not merely the ultimate conclusion,” the Court held.

The Court further underscored the foundational role of reasons in judicial orders:

“The requirement of recording reasons is not an empty formality. Reasons constitute the heartbeat of a judicial order. They assure the parties that their contentions have received due consideration, facilitate effective appellate or supervisory review and ensure transparency in the decision-making process. An order bereft of reasons or one which ignores material evidence cannot be sustained merely because the Court possesses jurisdiction to pass such an order. Jurisdiction and its lawful exercise are distinct concepts.”

An FIR was registered at Police Station Kotgate, Bikaner by complainant Manisha Jain for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 384 IPC against Nawla Ram, a Bank Manager, and his son Dr. Manohar Lal. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted a negative Final Report concluding that no case was made out against the accused persons. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the complainant filed a protest petition. The CJM, Bikaner, vide order dated 28.05.2011, disagreed with the negative Final Report, took cognizance of all three offences and issued warrants of arrest against the accused.

The accused preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner, who, while maintaining the order taking cognizance, modified the nature of process by substituting warrants of arrest with bailable warrants vide order dated 09.09.2014. Both the complainant (challenging the modification of process) and the accused (challenging the order of cognizance itself) filed separate miscellaneous petitions before the High Court. During the pendency of proceedings, the complainant expired and no application for substitution by her legal representatives was ever filed.

The accused’s counsel contended that the Magistrate had acted illegally in discarding the negative Final Report without recording any cogent reason for disagreeing with the Investigating Officer’s conclusions, and that cognizance had been taken solely on the basis of allegations reiterated in the protest petition. The complainant’s counsel supported the order, arguing that the Magistrate was fully competent to independently assess the material and that sufficient grounds existed for proceeding against the accused.

A careful reading of the CJM’s order dated 28.05.2011 disclosed that the Magistrate had principally relied upon the averments in the protest petition and the statements of the complainant and her parents, without adverting to the extensive investigation material on record. The negative Final Report — which the Court noted was not a cryptic document of bald conclusions but was founded on material collected during investigation and supported by reasons — received neither discussion nor engagement in the cognizance order.

“The learned Magistrate has not indicated as to which finding of the Investigating Officer was erroneous, perverse, unsupported by record or otherwise unacceptable in law,” the Court observed, finding the order conspicuously silent on the investigation record. “The record demonstrates that the Investigating Agency had undertaken a detailed inquiry and had examined various factual aspects of the matter before arriving at the conclusion that no case warranting prosecution was made out.”

The Court further held that the filing of a protest petition does not eclipse the investigation conducted by the police, nor does it relieve the Court of its obligation to evaluate the material collected during such investigation. “The judicial exercise required in such circumstances is one of comparative evaluation and reasoned disagreement,” the bench stated, finding that the Magistrate had instead accepted the protest petition version in its entirety while virtually ignoring the investigation record.

Justice Ali also independently examined the negative Final Report and found the Investigating Officer’s reasoning neither arbitrary nor speculative. The investigation had disclosed that the complainant and the accused were not strangers and had remained acquainted for a considerable period prior to the FIR. The complainant had continued voluntarily in the company of the accused over an extended duration, with ample opportunities to approach family members, acquaintances or public authorities — none of which she availed. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with sustained reticence and continued voluntary association, constituted what the Court described as a “formidable circumstance” casting serious doubt on the intrinsic reliability of the prosecution version.

“The failure of the learned Magistrate to advert to these crucial aspects while disagreeing with the Final Report renders the order of cognizance legally vulnerable and unsustainable,” the Court held, further finding that the consequential revisional order of the Additional Sessions Judge could not survive independently once the foundational cognizance order was found to be vitiated.

Accordingly, the accused’s petition (CRLMP No. 2330/2014) was allowed. The order dated 28.05.2011 of the CJM, Bikaner in FR No. 60/2007 and the order dated 09.09.2014 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2013 were quashed and set aside. The negative Final Report was accepted and all warrants of arrest against the accused were recalled. The complainant’s petition (CRLMP No. 2195/2014), having been left unprosecuted on account of her demise without substitution, was dismissed.

—

Title: Manisha Jain vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. / Nawla Ram & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2195/2014 and 2330/2014

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:26965]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Kapil Purohit

Counsel for respondent: Mr. N.S. Chandawat, PP; Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary and Ms. Sampati Choudhary