HUNUMAN PRASAD KUREEL Vs. JAGDEO SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basu, J. It appears that a complaint was filed by the opposite party Jagdeo Singh Yadav alleging therein that the present applicant Hunuman Prasad had perhaps given a false certificate that he was a freedom fighter. This alleged that prima facie offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I. P. C. were disclosed. On one day L e. 20-2-1989 the complainant was absent as a result of which the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 22-2-1989, the complainant reappeared and made an application along with certain annexures. The Magistrate being staisfied that the complaint should not have been dismissed in default treated the fresh application as sufficient materials for directing investigation apparently under Section 202, Cr. P. C. A copy of the order dated 22-2-1989 indicates that the Magistrate directed the comlaint and the relevant docu ments to he sent to the S. H. O. Kotwali, Kanpur for investigation. From the counter affidavit filed by Mahesh Pal Singh who is the Investigating Officer it appears that case crime No. 107 of 1989 has been registered under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I. P. C. in which investigation is in progress. According to the allegation in the counter affidavit a final report perhaps has been filed.

(2.) THERE is no error in the procedure adopted nor does the order of the Magistrate suffer from any illegality. Investigation of a crime must go on in accordance with law. THERE is no reason to apprehend anything wrongly because the right of the police to file a charge sheet or a final report as a frsult of the investigation is fully safeguarded by law of the land which will be considered by the Magistrate in accordance with law.