Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3738 (ALL)

Ramesh & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Another

2010-12-15

RAJ MANI CHAUHAN

body2010
Raj Mani Chauhan,J.:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2597 of 2010; Mangru Vs. Ram Raj and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (i)(x) SC/ST Act, Police Station Patranga, District Barabanki, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 25, Barabanki as well as for quashing the impugned order dated 17.7.2010 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has summoned the accused petitioners. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on the written report of opposite party No.2-complainant Mangru, the police of police station Patranga, District Barabanki, registered a case under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (i)(x) SC/ST Act against the accused for investigation. The Investigating Officer after investigation of the case did not find any evidence in support of the commission of the offences, therefore, he submitted final report in favour of the accused. The complainant thereafter filed protest petition against the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had ordered for further investigation of the case. The Investigating Officer further investigated the case and again he did not find any evidence in support of the commission of the offences and submitted final report in favour of the accused petitioners. The complainant again filed protest petition against the final report submitted by the investigating officer. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 of the Code and on the basis of the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, he summoned the accused petitioners. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners submits that the accused Ram Raj had already been dead which has been observed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the impugned order, even then he has been summoned. It appears that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate without applying his mind has passed the impugned order which is illegal and is liable to be quashed. It appears that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate without applying his mind has passed the impugned order which is illegal and is liable to be quashed. From a perusal of the record, it appears that Ram Raj was shown to be dead but he has also been summoned by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as an accused. This is serious mistake on the part of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, Sri Arvind Misra, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 25, Barabanki is directed to appear before this Court along with record of the case on 10.1.2011. List on the same day i.e. 10.1.2011. Till then, no coercive process will taken against the accused petitioners by the trial court.