ABDUL GAFFAR Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.P. Singh Somvanshi for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and the learned AGA for other respondents and perused the material on record.

(2.) It appears that Case Crime No. 164 of 1999 under Sections 324, 452, 307, 308 and 506 IPC, P.S. Patti, District Pratapgarh was registered against the petitioners. After concluding the investigation, the Police filed a final report indicating that no case was made out against the petitioners. The respondent No. 3 filed a protest petition against the final report and in support thereof filed affidavits of the witnesses, namely, Yasin, Bablu, Nazeer Khan and Anees. The learned Magistrate after considering the materials collected during investigation arrived at the conclusion that the injured witness had supported the FIR version during the investigation and the injury report prepared on his medical examination was also there. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the statement of the complainant duly corroborated with the injury report, was sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. It was also found that the investigation officer had ignored the injuries without any proper reason nor he made any attempt to get the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"). Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate was of the view that there was sufficient ground to proceed with the case against the petitioners under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had old enmity with respondent No. 3 and a civil and criminal proceedings were going on between the parties. The instant case was concocted due to the enmity. It was further submitted that the learned Magistrate had no power to reject the final report and take cognizance of the offences.