SHRI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Saxena, J. Heard the learned counsel at some length and also the learned A. G. A. Also perused the decision reported in 1994 (1) Crimes at page 919-Ashok & Ors v. State of U. P. & Ors, in which a number of decisions of this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court were considered by this Court. I have gone through the discussion of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and I find that the crux of the matter is as to whether the Magistrate treated the protest petition as a complaint and if so, only then it could be argued that he was bond to record evidence under Sections 200, 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1974 ). Learned counsel for the petitioners was specifically asked to point out evidence, if any, on the record from which it could be inferred that the protest petition of the informant was ever treated as a complaint by the learned Magistrate. After going through the impugned orders, I find that the learned Magistrate at no stage of the pro ceedings treated the protest petition of the informant as a complaint and he was, therefore, not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for a com plaint case.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate by his first order, dated 4-5-1994, a copy of which is Annexure No. 4 to the petition allowed the protest petition and further observed that a case already had been registered against the peti tioners. He further ordered the cancellation of the final report and summoned the petitioners for facing trial under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I. P. C, This order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by way of revision which was allowed by the court of revision on 19-5-1995- vide Annexure No. 5, which is a copy of the judgment whereby the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate dated 4-5-1994 was quashed, the case was remanded to the learned Magistrate and directions were further given to the learned Magistrate to proceed in the matter against in accordance with law. THE learned Magistrate, after receiving the remand order, passed the order dated 22-9-1995 as contained in Annexure No. 6 to the petition whereby he had returned the final report to the police station and directed further in vestigation by the police calling for its report by 7-10-1995. THE petitioners, however, did not submit to the order of the learned \magistrate dated 22-9-1995 and preferred a revision before the learned Session Judge, Moradabad, which after hearing the parties, was dismissed on 21-11-1995. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad, as contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. 3 From the above discussion it was evident that at no stage of the proceedings, the protest petition of the informant was treated by the learned Magistrate as a complaint and the order whereby he had taken cognizance of the case, therefore, could not be quashed in the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Ashok and others (supra ). THE cogni zance was validly taken by the learned Magistrate and the petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Ordered accordingly. Petition dismissed. .