CHETAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application moved u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) for quashing the orders dated 17.3.2005 and 20.4.2005 passed by the First Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Rudrapur, US Nagar in Crl. Case No.146/2005 and the order dated 28.5.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, US Nagar in Criminal Revision No.17 of 2005.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondent No.3-Raju Joshi lodged an FIR on 15.7.2003 at PS Sitarganj, Distt. US Nagar against the petitioners U/s 380 IPC for the theft of his revolver, on the basis of which a case crime No.259/2003 against the petitioners was registered. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by I.O. and after completing the investigation, he filed the Final Report in favour of the petitioners. Against the said order, the complainant moved a protest petition. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.3.2005, learned First Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Rudrapur, quashed the said final report and directed to register the case and thereafter vide order dated 20.4.2005, the trial court summoned the petitioners to face trial U/s 380 IPC. Assailing the order dated 20.4.2005, the petitioners preferred a revision which came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated 28.5.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, US Nagar, being not maintainable. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have falsely been implicated by the respondent no.3 in this case. It was further submitted that the learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge have passed the impugned orders in a technical manner and they have not applied the mind while passing the impugned orders and the said orders are not as per law. On the contrary, learned Addl. GA for the State, while completely supporting the order passed the trial court, submitted that the learned Magistrate has passed the order as per law and the learned Sessions Judge also rightly dismissed the revision. He further submitted that the facts in question involved absolutely disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided by this Court with half baked evidence.