UDAIVEER Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. K. K. Dwivedi for the Respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

(2.) In this case, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, vide the order dated 5.9.2008, rejected the final report and took cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 301, 307, 452, 323, 435 and 427, I.P.C. Against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Revision No. 308/2009 was filed In the Court of Session, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Agra on 27.7.2010.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that against the final report, the Respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition. The Chief Judicial Magistrate considereed the final report and the protest petition and passed the order dated 15.11.2007 against which Criminal Revision No. 43/2008 was preferred, in which the revisional court quashed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the final report and the protest petition and pass a fresh order. The revisional court while remanding the matter observed that when there was no adequate materials it was open to the Magistrate to direct for further investigation or treat the protest petition as complaint but the learned Magistrate ignored the directions of the revisional court and passed the second order dated 5.9.2008 on altogether irrelevant grounds. Even in the order dated 5.9.2008 certain faults committed by the Investigating Officer have been indicated, but the Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of directing for further investigation, took cognizance of the offences and rejected the final report. It was further submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has nowhere arrived at the conclusion that the materials collected during the investigation were sufficient to proceed with the matter and to summon the Petitioners. Therefore, the summoning order has been passed on the basis of the evidences, which were extraneous materials. It was further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while disposing of the Second Revision (Revision No. 308/2009) has also overlooked relevant aspects of the matter.