GAURI SHANKAR SAWHNEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Case No. 2647 of 2005 ( Brij Bihari Vs. Gauri Shankar Sawhney ) under Section 364/302/201 I.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra by which the learned Magistrate summoned the revisionist in the abovementioned case.

(2.) This revision was put up before this Court on 31.1.2012 as an unlisted case. Even in the revised call no one was present for opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. were present and they were heard in detail.

(3.) The facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2 Brij Bihari Singh moved an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 4.6.2005 with certain allegations against the revisionist which were under Section 343/346 I.P.C. The said application was disposed of by the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 16.6.2005. He disposed of the said application by an order whereby he treated the same a complaint and directed opposite party no. 2 to depose before him under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also for further proceedings. Thereafter, on 1.7.2005, opposite party no. 2 Brij Bihari Singh moved another application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against five persons including the revisionist in respect of the same incident. In this application allegations were under Sections 364, 302/201 I.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate called for a report from the police station who vide its report dated 4.7.2005 informed the court that opposite party no. 2 was trying to lodge an F.I.R. on false and frivolous grounds by stating false facts in it. It also indicated that a case against the opposite party no. 2 was registered at P.S. Saiyadraja, District Chandauli. A perusal of the report of the P.S. dated 4.7.2005 indicates that nothing has been mentioned in it whether any case in this regard was registered on the said police station or not ? Thereafter on 11.7.2005 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order in respect of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 1.7.2005. He treated this application as a complaint and registered it as a complaint case and connected it with the previous complaint which was initiated on the application of opposite party no. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 4.6.2005. The learned Magistrate further ordered for examination of the complainant, i.e., opposite party no. 2 herein under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On 18.10.2005 the opposite party no. 2 was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On 14.11.2005 P.W. 1 Ram Narayan and P.W. 2 Santosh were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, as it appears, some application was moved before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by opposite party no. 2 . That application was disposed of on 4.1.2006 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order that further inquiry in the mater shall be conducted by the police of P.S. Robertsganj, apparently under the provisions as contained in Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. When the order reached the Police Station Robertsganj, the police of the said police station, instead of investigating the matter under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C., lodged an F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the papers sent to it by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and started investigation as provided in Chapter XII of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code'). After completing the investigation, the I.O. of the case submitted a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate registered the said final report treating the same a police report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and issued notice to opposite party no. 2, the complainant of the case. The opposite party no. 2 appeared and lodged a protest against the final report. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties rejected the final report and passed the impugned order whereby he summoned the revisionist alongwith another person namely Satya Narayan Kushwaha and directed them to appear before him in the case under Section 364/302/201 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed.