BRIJ MOHAN AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Pandey and Dr. Archana Pandey learned counsels for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsels for the petitioner that he lodged an F.I.R. against the respondents no. 5 to 7. The matter was investigated by the police. The 1.0. came to, conclusion that the accused persons have not committed any offence, so final report was submitted by the 1.0. in the court of learned C.J.M., Ghaziabad. Against that final report the petitioner filed protest petition clearly mentioning therein that no fair investigation was done by the 1.0., even the statement of the witnesses were not recorded. The entries in the name of the witnesses were made in case diary sitting at the police station. In such circumstances the option was open for the learned Magistrate to treat the protest petition as complaint, but without treating the protest petition as complaint the learned Magistrate accepted the final report. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 25.9.2002 passed by the learned C.J.M., Ghaziabad is illegal. It is further submitted that the revisional court also did not consider the manifest error committed by the learned Magistrate and passed the illegal order dated 28.10.2002 dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 541 of 2002.

(3.) This contention has been opposed by learned A.G.A. by stating that the impugned orders are well reasoned. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.