Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 118 (ALL)

Anand Pahariya v. State of U. P.

2023-01-12

SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J. 1. List revised. None is present either for the revisionist or opposite party no. 2. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present. 2. This criminal revision is filed against judgment and order dated 02.09.2003 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 422 of 2000 (State of U.P. Versus Anand Pahariya) arising out of Case Crime No. 513 of 1999 under Sections 323, 504 and I.P.C. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar. By the impugned order, learned Magistrate has rejected the final report and has summoned the revisionist. 3. Perusal of record transpires that F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 513 of 1999 under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act was lodged by revisionist on 10.07.1999 against Smt. Manju and others. Thereafter, on 13.07.1999 an F.I.R. at Case Crime No. 365 of 1999 was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the revisionist under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 323 I.P.C. The matter was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted only for the offence under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. on which cognizance was taken and summon was issued on 05.01.2000. The matter was further investigated by CB/CID and final report was submitted on 18.07.1999. Opposite party no. 2 filed protest petition against the final report. The revisionist also filed objections. Learned Magistrate by the impugned order has rejected the final report and passed impugned summoning order. 4. It is undisputed that after investigation by the police charge-sheet was submitted for offence under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. on which learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and summoned the revisionist accused on 25.01.2000.Thereafter, further investigation was conducted by CB/CID and final report was submitted by it. The cognizance has already been taken by learned Magistrate much prior on the charge-sheet submitted by the police which contained sufficient material. Being satisfied with the material on record, cognizance has been taken by learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate in the impugned order has narrated entire facts and evidence available on record and after hearing both the parties and analyzing all the material on record came to the conclusion that in previous charge-sheet submitted by the local police there was sufficient material on which cognizance has been taken and on this ground learned Magistrate has rejected the final report submitted by CB/CID. The impugned order is reasoned one and there is no impropriety or illegality in the impugned summoning order. 5. The criminal revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.