Court No. - 34 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26627 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ayoob Mian Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Haji S. Kamal Khan,Sumit Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ram Autar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Haji S. Kamal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
AGA for the respondents and perused the record.
This petition has been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
with prayer to quash the impugned order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Rampur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner lodged an
F.I.R. against Mashkoor and three others under Sections 452, 504,
506,427,307 and 392 I.P.C. on 12.9.2006 and the police on completion of
investigation submitted final report in the case. The petitioner filed protest
petition against the said final report, which was rejected by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and the protest petition was registered as
complaint case and the case was proceeded with accordingly. The petitioner
then preferred a criminal revision No. 14 of 2009 against the said order, which
was dismissed on merit vide order dated 10.11.2009.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the police did not
investigate the case properly and filed final report within 24 hours under
influence of accused persons. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur
observed in his order that the complainant and his witnesses supported the
prosecution case in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus
the learned Magistrate should have taken cognizance under Section 190 (1)
(b) of Cr.P.C. and summoned the accused persons to face trial straightway
rather registering the said protest petition as complaint case.
Undoubtedly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur observed in his
order that the informant and his witnesses supported the prosecution case in
their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but the Magistrate did
not commit any illegality or irregularity in registering the protest petition as
complaint case in view of the several pronouncements made by this Court,
because the Magistrate was empowered to register the protest petition as
complaint and proceed with the same as complaint case. Under these
circumstances, no interference is required in this matter. Consequently, the
writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.1.2010
Salim