RAJKUMAR CHHEDILAL VISHVAKARMA Vs. POLICE INSPECTOR/PSO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;

(2.) It appears from the materials on record that on 9th May, 2017, in the late evening hours, the writ applicant was in company of his friend, by name, Kaushal Kedar Yadav. On the date of the incident, the first informant and the writ applicant herein were traveling together on a motorcycle and while they were passing through the Prit Party Plot, Canal Road, a four wheeler came all of a sudden and intercepted the motorcycle. Two persons came out of the car and dragged a writ applicant inside the car. Thereafter, the two persons, who abducted the writ applicant, led a severe assault. According to the writ applicant, this happened because he was in love with a girl, by name, Neelam. The father of Neelam disliked the relationship and he, in turn, hired two persons to thrash the writ applicant. Upon registration of the first information report, the investigation commenced. However, the Investigating Officer has not been able to make any headway so far as the two persons who kidnapped the writ applicant and assaulted him. In such circumstances, at the end of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed an "A" summary report in the court of the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant is not aware of such development.

(3.) Be that as it may, if an "A" summary report has been filed by the Investigating Officer in the court concerned, the court concerned will have to now issue a notice to the first informant and hear him so far as the "A" summary report is concerned. The Magistrate may accept the "A" summary report or he may reject the "A" summary report and order further investigation in the matter or he may, on his own, take cognizance. However, that is not the end of the matter.