ACHPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 20-10-2004, the Court below has set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 21-6-2003 whereby he had taken cognizance in the case under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 427, IPC where the police had submitted the final report and the complainant had made a protest petition against that report. The mere ground, which finds mention for accepting the revision against the order of the Magistrate by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, is that the procedure, as prescribed under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been followed and the cognizance of the case has been taken by the Magistrate. The Court below has also in this context relied upon the case law of Anil Kumar Chauhan v. State of U. P. , 2004 (1) JIC 982 (All ).

(3.) THE order so passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge requires interference. THE revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 20-10-2004 is hereby set aside.