CHIDANAND BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the orders dated 8. 5. 2008 and 4. 9. 2008 passed by the courts below. Vide order dated 8. 5. 2008 the C. J. M. , Bulandshahar, accepted the final report submitted by the police, rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and took the cognizance for the offence u/s 182 I. P. C. against the petitioner. The revision filed against this order was dismissed vide order dated 4. 9. 2008. It appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner and Kavita were married together. Out of this wedlock a daughter named Gungun was born. Due to the strained relations between the couple the lady was living at her parents house alongwith the daughter Gungun. It is said that the daughter had died on 13. 9. 2007. The petitioner thought that this was not a natural death but she was killed by her mother and others. He moved an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. On that application a case was registered with the police, which was later on investigated and final report was submitted. Against this final report a protest petition was filed by the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner and perusing the evidence on the record the C. J. M. concerned found that there was no evidence in support of the allegations made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the protest petition was rejected, the final report was accepted and the challani report submitted by the police u/s 182 I. P. C. was taken cognizance of by the Magistrate. I have heard Mr. I. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Mr. Singh argued that there was no justification with the Magistrate to accept the final report submitted by the police and to reject the protest petition filed by the petitioner. He further argued that it was also not justified to take straightway cognizance on the challan report submitted by the police without giving a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the proceedings u/s 182 I. P. C. be not initiated against him. So far as the propriety of accepting the final report and rejecting the protest petition is concerned, in that regard I feel that whatever has been opined by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge is correct. It appears from the evidence collected by the I. O. that the girl had died in a hospital (though no certificate to this effect is available on the record) and that being the fact, there could be no occasion for the petitioner to say or anybody else that the death was not a natural death but it was a murder. None of the witnesses examined by the police had supported the petitioner. Thus, there could be no propriety to reject the final report and to accept the protest petition filed by the petitioner. Now comes the point regarding taking of cognizance. As cognizance has already been taken, hence, I deem it proper that the objections in this regard may be raised before the court concerned. Accordingly, I endorse the judgments and orders dated 8. 5. 2008 and 4. 9. 2008 passed by the courts below and dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the trial court shall consider the objections of the petitioner if filed within a period of thirty days from today against the cognizance u/s 182 I. P. C. and after disposal of these objections shall proceed further in this case, if necessary. .