DEEPAK YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has challenged the orders dated 5.3.2010 and 11.4.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar as well as the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar.

(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to this petition, are that applicant Deepak Yadav got lodged a First Information Report at R.O.P. Khadhkadhi Kotwali Nagar Haridwar on 3.12.2009 against unknown person under Section 379 of IPC. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, final report was submitted by the police in the matter. On the final report, notices were issued to the applicant which was received by the applicant and the applicant then appeared before the court and he stated before the court that he has no objection with regard to the submission of final report and also requested to accept the final report. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, learned C.J.M., Haridwar, vide order dated 5.3.2010 accepted the final report. After some time, the applicant filed a protest petition against the final report before C.J.M., Haridwar, but the same was rejected vide order dated 11.4.2010 on the ground that the court has no right to recall its own order. Against that order, the applicant preferred a revision in the court of Sessions, which was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide order dated 25.5.2010. Hence, this petition.

(3.) From a perusal of the impugned order dated 5.3.2010, it transpires that notice was issued to the applicant which was received by the applicant and the applicant also appeared before the court and he stated before the court that he has no objection with regard to the submission of final report and also requested to accept the final report. Then on 5.3.2010, the court accepted the final report and dropped the proceedings. It is settled law that when a report is placed before the Magistrate, he has the option of adopting one of the three courses i.e. (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding; or (2) he may disagree with the report and take the view that there is sufficient ground for further proceeding, take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under Section 156(3). In a judgment rendered by Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of "Minu Kumari & another v. State of Bihar & others" reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 310, it has been held in para 11 of the said judgment that:-