PRATAP Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 22-8-1990 passed by the XIII ACJM, Agra, in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1990 summoning the accused applicants to face trial u/Ss.307/ 323/504, IPC.

(2.) Mohan Singh, respondent No. 2, lodged a first information report on 20-8-1988 at P.S. Kheragarh, Distt. Agra, alleging that the accused applicants assaulted Ram Ratan and his mother Smt. Bhagwati at about 8 a.m. on 20-8-1988. Both the injured, namely, Ram Ratan and Smt. Bhagwati, were medically examined at the Primary Health Centre and injuries were found on their person. Smt. Bhagwati died two days after the incident. A case was registered a Crime No. 108 of 1988 on the basis of the first information report lodged by Mohan Singh and investigation commenced. Subsequently the police of PS Kheragarh submitted final report on 3-11-1988. The complainant Mohan Singh filed a protest petition before the learned magistrate and contended that the final report had been submitted by the Investigating Officer on unjustifiable grounds. The learned magistrate, after hearing the complainant, passed an order on 22-8-1990 rejecting the final report and further directed that the accused applicants be summoned to face trial u/Ss. 307/ 323/ 504, IPC. It is this summoning order which has been challenged by the accused applicants in the present revision.

(3.) The first contention of Shri Tej Pal, learned counsel for the applicants, is that the learned magistrate has erred in summoning the applicants when the police had submitted a final report. He has also contended that the complainant Mohan Singh had merely filed a protest petition but the procedure prescribed in Chapter XV Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) had not been followed inasmuch as neither the statement of the complainant was recorded u/S. 200 nor the statement of witnesses was recorded u/S.202 of the Code. According to the learned counsel the learned magistrate acted wholly illegally in issuing process against the accused applicants as the procedure prescribed by law had not been followed.