Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 258 (ALL)

Ram Karan Son of Gurudeen v. State of U. P.

2005-02-15

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2005
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. ( 2 ) IT is contended that the petitioner lodged an F. I. R. which was investigated by the Investigating officer. Thereafter the final report was submitted in favour of the accused persons. The notice was sent to the petitioner but he did not file any protest petition in the court of learned magistrate. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar accepted the final report on 20. 8. 2004 only on the ground that the first informant had not filed the protest petition against the final report. That order was challenged by way of filing criminal Revision No. Nil of 2004, the same was dismissed by learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 25. 10. 2004. ( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned metropolitan Magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar, accepting final report only the ground of non-filing of the protest petition is illegal. It is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned orders because both the orders have been passed by courts below after considering all the facts. ( 4 ) FROM perusal of the impugned order dated 20. 8. 2004, it appears that the final report was accepted only on the ground of non-filing of protest petition by the petitioner. It is not sufficient ground of accepting final report because the learned Magistrate is under obligation to consider the police report containing the evidence collected by Investigating Officer for accepting or rejecting the final report but in the present case learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence collected by Investigating Officer. So the impugned order dated 20. 8. 2004 is illegal. The learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar also did not consider the same error of law, so the order dated 25. 10. 2004 passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar is also illegal. Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated 20. 8. 2004, passed by learned Metropolitan magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar and order dated 25. 10. 2004 passed by learned Incharge Sessions judge, Kanpur Nagar are setaside. 10. 2004 passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar is also illegal. Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated 20. 8. 2004, passed by learned Metropolitan magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar and order dated 25. 10. 2004 passed by learned Incharge Sessions judge, Kanpur Nagar are setaside. ( 5 ) LEARNED Metropolitan Magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar, is directed to pass fresh order on the police report after considering the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the law within a period of one month from today. ( 6 ) WITH this observation, this writ petition is finally disposed of. . .