RAM MILAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present petition u/Sec. 482 of CrPC the petitioners challenged the order dated 28-10-1987 passed by Ilnd Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Faizabad, by which the Munsif Magistrate refuesd to accept the final report submitted by the Investigating agency and summoned the petitioners u/Sec. 307 IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows ; THE FIR was lodged on 14-7-1982 at 4 10 hours by one Smt. Anara Devi at P. S. Malipur, Disstt. Faizabad naming all the petitioners as accused. THErefore the case was registered u/Sec. 307 IPC. Smt. Anara Devi was medically examined on the same day at about 11 a.m. by the Medical Officer Incharge P. H. C. Jalalpur who found five gun shot injuries on her person. THE ponce after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against all the accused persons who are the petitioners in this case. THE petitioners had also moved an application before the Home Department of Govt, of U. P. for fresh investigation by the C.I D. and the Govt, of U. P. vide Government Order No. 52 of 1982, confidential-? directed the C.B. C.I.D. to make investigation. THE C.B. C.I.D. had also sought the medicolegal opinion from the State Medicoligal expert namely Dr. K. K. Singhal, who had given bis report on 23-12-1985. According to Dr. K.. K. Singhal, injuries of injured Smt. Anara Devi were appeared to be manufactured one. THE C.B. C.I.D. after completing the investigation submitted the final report in the court of the Munsif Magistrate. THE complainant also moved a protest application before the court concerned praying that the final report submitted by the C.B. C.I.D. be rejected. THE Munsif Magistrate after perusing the papers, submitted by the police as well as by the C.B. C.I.D., rejected the final report and had taken cognizance against the petitioners. THE learned Munsif Magistrate summoned all the petitioners for the offence u/Sec. 307 IPC by order dated 28-10-1987. THE petitioners filed the present petition challenging the said order, firstly on the ground that the accused were summoned without following the procedure of sections 200 and 202 CrPC, and secondly, it is alleged that from the careful perusal of the records of the case, it is clear that the evidence gathered by the C.B. C.I.D. shows that a case was concocted one and no such incident took place as alleged by Smt. Anara Devi. He relied merely on the opinion of Medico Legal expert who stated that the injuries of Smt Anara Devi appeared to be manufactured one.

(3.) IN view of the Supreme Court case M/s. INdia Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka 1989 SCC Crl. 306=1989 CrLJ 963, the law laid down in Case of Beeran v. State of U. P., 1985 (22) ACC 116 is in my opinion not good law.