INDRA PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Though the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the applicant has desired that fur ther proceeding in Crl. Misc. Case No. 395 of 1997 (State v. Indra Pal and two others) u/ss. 406,504 and 506, IPC pending before the Xllth ACJM, Meerut, be quashed.

(2.) AN FIR in case Crime No. 10 of 1997 was lodged at P. S. Saruppur District Meerut, by one Neera against the present applicant and others for having declined to return her marriage gifts, which were in their possession in trust on behalf of the complainant. The police submitted a final report. The APO connected with the court of the Magistrate had, however, opined that prima facie materials were there for taking cognizance. The court thereafter recorded an order on 27-5-1997, stating that he had looked to the concerned papers and was satisfied that zprima facie case was made out against the accused persons. Accordingly, he declined to accept the final report and take cognizance for offences under Sections 406, 506 and 504, IPC against the applicants and others and summoned them to appear before the court.

(3.) THIS contention of the applicant was sought to be supported by two decisions. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court as 1998 Allahabad Crl. Cases at page 19. An Hon'ble single Judge of this High Court at the Lucknow Bench had before him a case in which accused persons were summoned despite submission of a final report. A protest petition was filed in that case and the Magistrate had rejected the final report without assigning any reason. There was no evidence on record in sup port of the protest petition to entitle the court to summon the accused. THIS order was quashed and the Magistrate was directed to record a fresh reasoned order. The learned Counsel further relied on another decision of the Allahabad High Court, again by an Hon'ble single Judge, as in 1997 JIC 724. It was also a case where the accused was summoned despite submis sion of a final report. The Magistrate had opined that he had perused the evidence and the affidavits etc. and the materials on record, but there was no specific mention that the final report was not acceptable nor was there any mention of the materials which warranted rejection of the final report. The summoning order was set aside and the matter was sent back to the CJM for consideration afresh according to law.