AFZAL BEG Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAITHLI Sharan, J. This is a peti tion under Section 482 Cr. P. C. invoking the inherent powers of this Court, moved by the petitioners for setting aside the impugned orders dated 21-4-97 Annexure No. 2 and 2-5-97 Annexure No. 1, passed by the Judi cial Magistrate II Gonda and Sessions Judge, Gonda.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are thus: Opposite Party No. 4 Arif Anwar Hashmi lodged a first information report at the Police Station Sadulla Nagar, district Gonda on 24-6-90 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 504 and 506 I. P. C. and case Crime No. 69/90 was registered. THE inves tigation was done by the Police and it sub mitted the final report on 23-12-94. After the submission of the final report by the Police opposite party No. 4 Arif Anwar Hashmi submitted objection before the trial Court with the prayer that the ac cused/petitioners be summoned and the proceedings in accordance with law be started against them. THE learned trial Magistrate rejected the final report and summoned the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. THE petitioners submitted an ap plication before the Judicial Magistrate concerned, requesting therein that since the Police had submitted a final report in the case, hence the present case be treated as a complaint case and the trial of the case should be proceeded accordingly. THE said application of the petitioners was rejected by the trial Magistrate by the order dated 21-4-97. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners filed criminal revision petition No. 136/97 before the Sessions Judge who also dismissed the revision petition. Now the petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. PC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the summoning order was passed on the basis of the protest report, hence the Magistrate concerned should have proceeded with the case as a complaint case, and thus, the impugned order dated 21- 4-97 (Annexure No. 2) passed by him is illegal and further that the impugned order dated 2-5-97 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gonda in revision is also against law. I am afraid, the argument advanced by the learned counsel is not sound.