LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-74

ISRAR Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On August 01, 2007
ISRAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Mishra and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A.

(2.) THIS application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 19-10-2005 passed by II- A. C. J. M. , Budaun in case No. 502 of 2005 whereby the learned Magistrate concerned has rejected the final report, taken the cognizance and summoned the applicants to face the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201, IPC and Section 3/4, D. P. Act and order dated 31-1- 2007 passed by learned Special Judge (S. C. /s. T. Act), Budaun in Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2005 whereby the revision filed by the applicants has been dismissed.

(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A. that in the present case the final report has been submitted against which protest petition has been filed by O. P. No. 2 alleging therein that the I. O. had not recorded the statements of the witnesses but their statements have been written in the case diary as desired by the I. O. IN such circumstances, the learned Magistrate rightly treated the protest petition as a complaint vide order dated 18-5-2005 thereafter the statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Crpc were recorded, considering the same the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicants in exercise of powers conferred under Section 190 (1) (a ). The learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b ). The rejection of final report does not mean that the learned Magistrate again adopted the procedure which has been given up by passing the order under Section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. there is no illegality in the rejection of the final report because learned Magistrate was under obligation to pass the order on the final report also because it was a police report submitted after the investigation. There is no illegality in the impugned order. The present application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.