HARKESH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 20-4-2000 passed by IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor directing issue of process against the applicants is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) Facts relevant for the purpose of this revision in brief are that on a complaint filed by Om Prakash, father of opposite party No.2 and others regarding an incident of 29-3-1999 the police on the basis of an order made under S.156(3) Cr. P.C. investigated the case and submitted final report. Ten days thereafter another complaint with the nomenclature "Application under S.156(3) Cr.P.C." was filed by the opposite party No.2 alleging therein that on 12-4-1999 the applicants assaulted him and Ram Chandra and caused them injuries. The Magistrate concerned directed the police to register First Information Report and investigate the same. Consequently, case was registered and police came into action. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses and concluded that case was false and concocted. With these conclusions he submitted 'final report' which was forwarded to the Court concerned by the Officer-in-charge of concerned police station. Feeling aggrieved, opposite party No.2 filed objections against acceptance of final report in the form of a "Protest Petition" alleging therein that the investigating officer neither interrogated the witnesses nor recorded their statements and submitted final report in collusion with the accused persons. In support of the protest petition he also filed his own affidavit and affidavits of witnesses Ram Chandra, Banshi, Mohd. Ali, Abdul Aziz and Shamsher. The learned Magistrate then passed the impugned order observing that perusal of case diary revealed that the investigating officer did not record the statements of witnesses Ram Chandra, Mohd. Ali and Shamsher on the ground that they did not come forward before him despite requisition sent to them. He further observed that the complainant in his statement has supported the allegations made in the First Information Report. It appears that the Magistrate on the basis of material placed before him which also included the complainant's affidavit and affidavits of witnesses, concluded that the final report was liable to be rejected. Accordingly final report dated 1-6-1999 was rejected and impugned summoning order was passed.

(3.) The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.