LAWS(ALL)-1994-9-75

ASAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On September 27, 1994
ASAD KHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. This revision has been directed against the order dated 22-5-1993, passed by then Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur in case Crime No. 454 of 1992 under Sections 147, 323, 324 and 307 I. P. C.

(2.) FROM the record it would appear that in the aforesaid case crime number the police submitted a final report. This final report was not accepted by the court below as the first informant had filed a protest petition and vide order dated 22-5-1993 the learned Magistrate summoned the revi sionist for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307, I. P. C.

(3.) IT would further appear that in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6108 of 1988 Ramadhin Sharma and others v. State of U. P. and others final report was submitted by the investigating agency. The complainant placed a protest petition before the Court stating that the final report be not accepted. The accused coming to know of the said application moved the Court saying that since the investigating agency did not find anything against them the final report be not interfered with unless the accused are also heard. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of the accused and fixed a date for consideration of the final report. Against this order the aforesaid application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was filed. The matter was referred to a Division Bench as the question involved was an important one. IT would thus appear that at the time the judgment in Gajendra Kumar Agarwal's case was passed it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the question is under consideration of a Division Bench. In the circumstances the revisionist cannot argue that he should also have been heard before any order was passed upon the final report and the protest petition. IT was also argued that the final report was properly submitted and the F. I. R. lodged against the revisionist was an after thought and without any substance. This Court while sitting in revision can not decide this question of fact.