CHANDRA SHEKHAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 18.08.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No.130 of 2012 (Ram Kishore and others Vs. State of U.P.).

(2.) BRIEF facts for deciding this petition are that the petitioner lodged a first information report on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No.324 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Raje Sultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar against opposite party no.2 Ram Kishore, opposite party no.3 Raghavendra and opposite party no.4 -Shatrunjay @ Prince. The police after completing investigation submitted Final Report No.17 of 2010 dated 15.12.2010. Against the final report, the petitioner filed protest petition and requested to set aside the final report and to take cognizance against the accused persons. Learned Magistrate after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the record as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and after considering the case laws cited by the petitioner, rejected the final report submitted by the police and summoned the opposite parties no.2, 3 and 4 vide order dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure -6 to this petition) after exercising power under Section 190 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of summoning, the opposite parties no.2, 3 and 4 filed Criminal Revision No.130 of 2012 before learned Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar. Learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 18.08.2012 after setting aside the order of learned Magistrate for taking cognizance directed the Magistrate to treat the protest petition as complaint and further directed that learned Magistrate shall order the petitioner to adduce evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. to establish the forgery committed in respect of government record. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.08.2012, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) IT has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bakridi and two others Vs. State of U.P. and two others,1992 29 AllCriC 371, learned Magistrate is not bound to treat the protest petition as complaint and to follow the procedure laid down under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. Hence, the order passed by revisional court directing the Magistrate to treat the protest petition as complaint is without jurisdiction because it is the sole discretion of the Magistrate how to deal with final report. The revisional court cannot pass any order curtailing the discretion of the learned Magistrate.