SATYAPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is being disposed of finally.

(2.) THE brief facts of the matter are that a first information report was lodged purporting to be under sections 395, 397 and 376 of the IPC against the revisionist Satyapal, Grish and Shyam Pal. On the basis of the same, case crime no. 192 of 1987 was registered at Police-station-Kotwali, Etah. An investigation was made and the Investigating Officer ultimately submitted what is known in common parlance as 'the final report'. Simultaneously with it a protest petition of which a copy has been placed on the record, in compliance with the order of this Court was also moved by the complainant. THE learned Special Judge (DAA) Etah, who was seized of the matter through Special Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1988 passed the following order on 19-2-1988- 19-2-88 : " Perused all the record on protest file. THEre are statements of witnesses, Medical report and Injury repeat and Case Diary. Considering all tee material on record, it cannot be said that there is nothing to proceed against accused persons. Against ail the accused named in FUR i.e. Satya Pal. Grish, Shyam Pal, the cognizance is taken under sections 395/391/376 IPC. Accused be summoned for 19-3-88 ". Sd. Ram Das Spl. Judge (D.A.A.) Etah. It is now contended that since the order has been passed on the protest petition it should have been treated as a complaint and the procedure of a complaint case should have been gone through and before actual summoning of the applicants, statements under sections 200 and 202 CrPC ought to have been recorded. As such it is contended that the order of summoning is invalid and should be quashed.

(3.) THE cases of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 and K. S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), 1980 ACrR 423 = AIR 1980 SC 1883, lay down this law.