(1.) Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1. Even in the revised list none appeared on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf, this court proceed to hear the matter finally.
(2.) This revision is directed against the order dtd. 26/7/2001 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj by which he has accepted the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and set aside the order dtd. 25/4/2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chhibramau by which he has summoned the opposite party no.2 under Sec. 379 I.P.C.
(3.) The brief facts of the present case is that the revisionist has constructed a house in the property in dispute and also there are 32 trees of Mango and one tree of Neem. On 6/9/2000 respondent No.2 along with some unsocial elements has broken the lock of the house of the revisionist and took possession on the same and also take away the goods of Rs.8000.00. The revisionist tried to lodge F.I.R. by approaching the concerned Police Station and by sending Fax message to the Superintendent of Police, but no F.I.R. has not been lodged. Thereafter, revisionist filed an application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate on 2/12/2000 and on the application of the revisionist on the same day the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has passed an order directing the Police Station of concerned Police to lodge an F.I.R. and inform the Court. Pursuant to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate an F.I.R. has been lodged by the police on 7/12/2000, under Ss. 147, 504, 506, 427, 448, 379 I.P.C. and the same was registered as Case Crime No. 454 of 2000 and after investigation the Investigating Officer in a mechanical manner submitted final report in favour of the opposite party no.2 without considering the evidence on record.