ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. Report is that opposite party Mo. 2 has died. Now this revision has to be disposed of with the aid of learned A. G. A.

(2.) I have perused the impugned summoning order, what appears is that there was a cross report registered as Crime No. 16-A of 1989 under Section 147/148/149/504/387 I P C. After investigation Final Report was submitted. Complainant-deceased Hari Naraiu filed protest petition. Learned Magistrate did not treat it as complaint. He did not follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. We perused the Case Diary and relying upon that statements contained in the Case Diary he rejected the Final Report and summoned the revisionists. Every protest petition need not be treated as complaint and so long as protest petition is not treated as complaint, manda tory provisions of the provhion of Section 202 (2) are not attracted. A Magis trate has jurisdiction to disagree with the opinion of the Investigating Officer and if he finds from the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer that there is prima facie case, he can proceed to summon the accused under Section 204, Cr. P. C. hold that there is no force in the present revision and it is liable to be dismissed.