SAFDAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIJAY Kumar Verma-"Can a Magistrate even after accepting the final report filed by the police still take cognizance of an offence upon a protest petition or complaint on the same or similar allegations of fact?" is the main point that falls for consideration in this proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "the Cr. P.C."), by means of which, the applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, praying for quashing of the order dated 17.9.2007, passed by the then Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Revision No. 149 of 2007, Safdar v. State of U. P., and order dated 19.6.2007, passed by the Judicial Magistrate/2nd Additional Civil Judge/(J.D.) Rampur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 523 of 2007.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., in brief, are that an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. was moved by the applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on 12.12.2005, which was allowed. Pursuant to the order passed on that application by the learned Magistrate, an F.I.R. was lodged on 23.12.2005 and a case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 307 of Indian Penal Code (in short, "the I.P.C.") was registered against Yaseen S/o Pyare and Guddu S/o Ahmad Navi (opposite parties No. 2 and 3 herein) at P. S. Bhot (Rampur). After investigation, final report was submitted by the police and a report under Section 182, I.P.C. was also sent for taking action against the applicant/ complainant. Notice of the final report and application under Section 182, I.P.C. was sent to the complainant on 20.2.2006. On getting information, the complainant appeared in the Court of Magistrate concerned and sought time to file objections against the final report. On 6.6.2006, the complainant did not appear in the Court and hence, the learned Magistrate accepted the final report and adjourned the case for taking action under Section 182, I.P.C., against the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed protest petition against the final report on 1.8.2006. After hearing the counsel of the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate/2nd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Rampur vide his order dated 19.6.2007 dismissed the protest petition holding that since the final report has already been accepted on 6.6.2006, hence the protest petition is not maintainable. Order dated 19.6.2007, passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged by the complainant/applicant in the court of Sessions Judge, Rampur by means of Criminal Revision No. 149 of 2007, which has been dismissed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Rampur vide his order dated 17.9.2007. Both these orders have been challenged in this proceeding under Section 482, Cr. P.C.

(3.) IT was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the order dated 19.6.2007, passed by the Judicial Magistrate/2nd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Rampur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 523 of 2007 and order dated 17.9.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Revision No. 149 of 2007 are wholly illegal, as even after acceptance of the final report by the Magistrate, the complainant has right to file protest petition and cognizance still can be taken by the Magistrate upon the protest petition.