Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2949 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ramanpal Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Mohit Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in crime no. 280 of 2008 ( wrongly mentioned as 280 of 2009 in the
impugned order) under section 304, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Khudaganj District Shahjahanpur.
In the aforesaid case crime number, the police submitted final report in favour of the revisionists.
The respondent no. 2, complainant filed protest petition. After hearing the complainant as well as
Assistant Public Prosecutor, the final report was rejected. The protest petition was allowed and
the revisionists were summoned to face trial.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the learned Magistrate, while
summoning the revisionists, neither relied on the material available in the case diary nor treated
the protest petition as complaint case and did not even record the statement of the complainant
and his witnesses under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. therefore, impugned order is bad in law.
Reliance has been placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of
PAKHANDU and others Vs. STATE OF U.P. and another, reported in [ 2001 (43 ) ACC 1096].
Wherein, it has been held that after receipt of final report, on the protest petition the Magistrate
has to follow any of the four courses;
(i) He may accept the final report and may drop the proceedings.
(ii) He may take cognizance under section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., if there is sufficient material in the
case diary.
(iii) He may order further investigation, if he satisfies that investigation was made in a
perfunctory manner, or
(iv) He may treat protest petition as a complaint case and proceed to the Act under section 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should
be issued.
A perusal of the record reveals that learned Magistrate neither relied on the material available in
case diary nor proceeded to take action under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. but summoned the
revisionists. The order does not indicate that on what the evidence the impugned order has been
passed.
The impugned order cannot sustained and is liable to be set aside.
The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.7.2010 summoning the revisionists is set
aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order in the following manner;
(i) If there is sufficient material in the case diary to proceed against the revisionists, learned
Magistrate shall pass an order accordingly under section 190 (i) (b) Cr.P.C.
(ii) If sufficient material is not present in the case diary, the learned Magistrate may treat the
protest petition as complaint and shall provide an opportunity to the complainant to adduce
evidence under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law.
This revision is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 2.8.2010
Gss