SANSVEER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner lodged a First Information Report under Section 324 I. P. C. which was registered at case Crime No. 30 of 2004. Subsequently the case was converted into an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. THE injuries of the injured were examined on 22-1-2004 and according to X-ray report grievous injury was received by the injured. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final report on the basis of compromise. THE petitioner preferred a protest petition. THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide order dated 4-1-2006 rejected the final report and directed that the protest petition be registered as a complaint case fixing 26-10-2004 for statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C. This order was challenged in criminal revision which was dismissed vide order dated 14-9-2006.

(3.) IN the circumstances, on the basis of the various verdict of this Court which has been given following the principle laid down by the Apex Court, I am not in agreement with the submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate had no other option but to have taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. after perusing the case diary. A bare perusal of the impugned order which was confirmed in revision, shows that the Magistrate has opted to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) Cr. P. C. and has fixed the date for recording statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. before summoning the accused. The impugned orders does not suffer any legal infirmity whatsoever. No good ground for interference is made out. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .