UMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P.

(2.) THIS application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.10.2007, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, in Misc. Case No. 1694/IX of 2007, whereby learned Magistrate concerned has rejected the final report of Case Crime No. 29 of 2005, under Sections 337, 338 and 304, I.P.C., Police Station, Rajapur, district Chitrakoot and summoned the applicants to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II, I.P.C., and order dated 11.9.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2008 whereby revision filed by the applicants has been dismissed.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P., and from the perusal of records, it appears that in the present case, first information report has been lodged by opposite party No. 2 Sri Bachcha Lal Kewat, against unknown persons in Case Crime No. 29 of 2008, under Sections 337, 338 and 304, I.P.C. at Police Station, Rajapur, district Chitrakoot on 17.5.2005 at 4 a.m. in respect of an incident which had occurred in the night of 16/17.5.2005 at about 2 a.m., after investigation, final report has been submitted by Investigating Officer in the Court of learned C.J.M., Chitrakoot thereafter the notice was sent to the first informant, the same was served upon him but opposite party No. 2 did not appear in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned even after service of notice upon him thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned rejected the final report only on the ground that affidavits of injured namely Deo Kumar and Ram Milan were sent to Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot, but the same have not been properly considered by the Investigation Officer, the charge-sheet has been submitted in a routine manner. According to the affidavits of Deo Kumar and Ram Milan, co-accused Kamla Kant discharged the shots by licensed rifle of Umesh Kumar Shukla as a result of which Km. Rajni (deceased), Deo Kumar and Ram Milan have sustained injuries and subsequently, Km. Rajni succumbed to her injuries. It is also mentioned in their affidavits that except co-accused Kamla Kant no other person of marriage party had discharged the shots and the co-accused Kamla Kant was apprehended at the spot but the learned Magistrate concerned has not given any reference in the impugned order dated 27.10.2007 in respect of the statements of witnesses interrogated by Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr. P.C. even no reference has been made about the statements of injured persons namely Deo Kumar and Ram Milan whether they were interrogated by Investigating Officer or not ; the learned Magistrate concerned has not expressed any opinion about constitution of the offence on the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer.