Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009<br />
No. 2 to 7) and 30 unknown persons.<br />
After investig<strong>at</strong>ion, final report was<br />
submitted on next day i.e. 18.10.2007.<br />
Against th<strong>at</strong> final report, the applicant<br />
Anil Kumar Vashisth filed protest petition<br />
in the <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Special Judge, (D.A.A.),<br />
Jhansi in Criminal Misc. Case No.690 <strong>of</strong><br />
2007. After hearing parties counsel, the<br />
learned Special Judge, (D.A.A.) Jhansi<br />
accepted the final report vide impugned<br />
order d<strong>at</strong>ed 21.03.2009, but did not pass<br />
any order on the protest petition. This<br />
order has been challenged in Applic<strong>at</strong>ion<br />
No.19770 <strong>of</strong> 2009. On the basis <strong>of</strong> the<br />
applic<strong>at</strong>ion under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.<br />
moved by Km. Bhanw<strong>at</strong>i (applicant in<br />
Applic<strong>at</strong>ion No. 19771 <strong>of</strong> 2009), an FIR<br />
was registered in pursuance <strong>of</strong> the order<br />
passed on th<strong>at</strong> applic<strong>at</strong>ion on 20.07.2008<br />
<strong>at</strong> P.S. Garotha, where a case under<br />
section 379, 352, 504, 506 IPC was<br />
registered <strong>at</strong> case crime No. 378 <strong>of</strong> 2008<br />
against Badri, Phool Singh, Ajay, Indra<br />
Kumar and Hari (opposite parties No. 2 to<br />
6). After investig<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> this case also,<br />
final report was submitted by the<br />
investig<strong>at</strong>ing <strong>of</strong>ficer, against which the<br />
applicant Km. Bhanw<strong>at</strong>i filed protest<br />
petition on 14.12.2008 in Criminal Misc.<br />
Case No. 52 <strong>of</strong> 2008 in the <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Judicial Magistr<strong>at</strong>e, Garotha, who vide<br />
impugned order d<strong>at</strong>ed 20.05.2009<br />
accepted the final report, without passing<br />
any order on the protest petition. This<br />
order has been challenged in Criminal<br />
Misc. Applic<strong>at</strong>ion No.19971 <strong>of</strong> 2009.<br />
5. I have heard arguments <strong>of</strong> Sri<br />
R.K. Kaushik, Advoc<strong>at</strong>e appearing for the<br />
applicants and AGA for the St<strong>at</strong>e. Since<br />
the accused/opposite parties had no right<br />
to particip<strong>at</strong>e in the proceedings, which<br />
have arisen due to submission <strong>of</strong> final<br />
report and filing protest petition by the<br />
complainants (applicants), hence notices<br />
have not been issued to the<br />
accused/opposite parties in both the cases.<br />
6. The first and foremost submission<br />
made by the learned counsel for the<br />
applicants was th<strong>at</strong> <strong>at</strong> the time <strong>of</strong> disposal<br />
<strong>of</strong> the final reports, the learn ed courts<br />
below were bound to tre<strong>at</strong> the protest<br />
petitions <strong>of</strong> the complainants as complaint<br />
and after adopting the procedure laid<br />
down in Chapter XV Cr.P.C., order under<br />
Section 203 or 204, as the case may be,<br />
ought to have been passed and since this<br />
procedure was not followed by the <strong>Court</strong>s<br />
below while deciding the final reports and<br />
protest petitions, hence, the impugned<br />
orders being wholly illegal should be setaside<br />
and the cases be sent back to the<br />
<strong>Court</strong>s below for passing fresh order on<br />
the protest petitions filed by the<br />
complainants against the final reports<br />
tre<strong>at</strong>ing the same as complaints and<br />
following the procedure under Section<br />
200 and 202 Cr.P.C.<br />
7. The learned A.G.A. on the other<br />
hand submitted th<strong>at</strong> the Magistr<strong>at</strong>e is not<br />
bound in each and every case to tre<strong>at</strong> the<br />
protest petition as complaint, and hence,<br />
there is no scope to make any interference<br />
by this <strong>Court</strong> in the impugned orders, as<br />
the said orders do not suffer from any<br />
legal infirmity.<br />
8. Having taken the submissions<br />
made by the parties’ counsel into<br />
consider<strong>at</strong>ion and after carefully going<br />
through the averments made in the first<br />
inform<strong>at</strong>ion reports in both the cases, I am<br />
<strong>of</strong> the opinion th<strong>at</strong> in present cases, the<br />
protest petitions filed by the applicants<br />
against final reports, ought to have been<br />
tre<strong>at</strong>ed as complaint and after following<br />
the procedure laid down under Chapter<br />
XV Cr.P.C., order under section 203 or