ORI HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. K. Sharma, J. The facts leading to this revision are that in Crime No. 109 of 1981, State v. Subrati & Ors. , under Sec- lions 384/323, I. P. C. Police Station Dheberuwa, district Basti, the police sub mitted a final report after investigation and after that the complainant Ori Harijan, who is now revisionist before this Court, filed a protest petition accom panied by affidavits of certain witnesses and the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the Investigating Officer did not record the correct statements of the witnesses in the case diary and con sidering that it was fit and proper to sum mon the accused Subrati and others for the offences under Sections 384/323, I. P. C. , directed their summoning by his order dated 26-11-1981.

(2.) THE aforesaid order dated 26-11-1981 was challenged before the Court of Session in revision by accused persons, namely, Subrati, Bhola, Kavar and Dhorey. THE revision was registered as Crl. Revision No. 56 of 1982, Subrati & others v. State. THE revision came up for disposal before Sri Rajendra Nath, the then V the Additional Sessions Judge, Basti. He, after referring to the provision of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and relying on an authority of this Court, observed that if the Magistrate did not agree with the final report sub mitted by the police, he can either order reinvestigation by the police or could re cord the statement under Section 200, Cr. PC. or could have made further enquiry himself or got it done by any other person and that it was only then that if he was satisfied that there was sufficient ground for summoning the accused he could order before summoning (sic ). On this ground, he allowed the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 26-11-1981. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant Ori Harijan preferred the present revision.