NARAYAN SHANKER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No. 4 against the applicant and as many as eleven other per ­sons for offence under Section 395,1.P.C. on 19 -3 -1991. The police after investiga ­tion of the case submitted the final report. Notice was sent to the complainant -op ­posite party No. 4 by the Magistrate but she neither appeared nor filed any protest petition. The final report was therefore, accepted on 3 -6 -1994. Against that order t he opposite party No. 4 preferred a Criminal Revision No. 305 of 1994, which have been allowed by order dated 23 -2 -1999 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. He has quashed the order dated 3 -6 -1994, by which the final report was accepted and direction has been issued that the learned Magistrate will provide an op ­portunity to the opposite party No. 4 to file protest petition and thereafter shall pass proper order. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard Sri M.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A.The opposite party No. 4 have been served personally but has not appeared and therefore, she could not be heard. However, I have gone through the record myself.

(3.) IN my opinion, there is no illegality in the order. There was no justification of keeping the matter pending indefinitely. In the circumstances the learned Addi ­tional Sessions Judge has erred in allowing the revision.