DHARMENDRA SWAMI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) THE First Information Report has been registered at the instance of the respondent No. 2 as a counterblast to the report lodged by the petitioners. After investigation, the police submitted a final report on 14-2-2003. Notice was issued to the respondent No. 2. THE respondent No. 2 preferred a protest petition. Learned Magistrate, Firozabad rejected the final report and summoned the petitioners vide order dated 4-6-2004. This order was challenged in revision. THE revisional Court dismissed the revision on 23-8-2006. Both the orders are impugned in the instant writ petition.

(3.) IN view of the decision mentioned above, a bare reading of Section 190 (1) Cr. P. C. , it is apparent that the Magistrate while summoning the accused has clearly observed that he has heard the Counsel for the complainant, perused the case diary and other documents available on record as documentary evidence, he is satisfied that final report submitted by the police is incorrect. IN the circumstances, it is clear that there is no illegality whatsoever committed by the Courts below. The impugned orders are legal and do not call for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.