DAYA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Challenge in this revision preferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the 'Cr. P.C.') is to the order dated 13.8.2007, passed by Sri Susheel Kumar, the then Judicial Magistrate Rampur, in Case No. 19 of 2008, Daya Ram v. Shanti Prasad and others, whereby accepting the final report submitted by the Police of P. S. Milak Khanam, District Rampur, in Case Crime No. 81/2005, under Section 409/504/ 506 I.P.C., the objections filed by the revisionist/complainant Daya Ram have been rejected.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that the revisionist Daya Ram had lodged an F.I.R. on 1.4.2005 at P. S. Milak Khanam, District Rampur, where a case under Section 409/504/506, I.P.C. was registered at Crime No. 81/05 against Shanti Prasad and Mohd. Ahmad (respondents No. 2 and 3 herein). It appears that after investigation, final report was submitted by the police. When notice of that final report was issued to the complainant, he filed objections in the Court of Magistrate concerned on 4.1.2006. After hearing the counsel for the complainant and going through the case diary, the then Judicial Magistrate, Rampur rejected the final report and summoned the accused Shanti Prasad and Mohd. Ahmad to face the trial under Section 409/504/506, I.P.C. vide order dated 6.1.2006 passed in Case No. 118/12 of 2005. That order was challenged by the accused persons in the Court of Sessions Judge, Rampur by means of Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2006, which was decided on 7.10.2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Rampur, whereby revision was allowed and after setting aside the order dated 6.1.2006, the case was sent back to the Court of Magistrate concerned for passing fresh order on the final report and objections of the complainant keeping in view the observations made in the judgment. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 13.8.2007, which has been challenged in this revision.

(3.) THE learned A.G.A., on the other hand submitted that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, as the Magistrate can disagree with the conclusion drawn by the police after investigation and it was not obligatory for the Magistrate to treat the objections against final report as complaint.