Faish Akhtar vs State of U.P. and Others

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

There is no need issue notice to opp. party Nos. 2 and 3.

The instant revision has been directed against the order dated 27.5.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, in crime No. 632 of 2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 421, 197, 198 IPC P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar, whereby the protest petition of the revisionist against the final report submitted by the police was treated as complaint and the revisionist was directed to examine himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the Magistrate would have taken cognizance on the basis of material available in case diary or should have directed for further investigation.

Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned judgment.

A Division Bench of this Court in Pakhando and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. XLIII 2001 ACC 1096 has held that:

(1) He may agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the police, accept the report and drop the proceedings. But before so doing, he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant; or

(2) he may take cognizance u/s 190(1)(b) and issue process straightway to the accused without being bound by the conclusions of the Investigating agency, where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed; or

(3) he may order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner; or

(4) he may, without issuing process or dropping the proceedings to decide to take cognizance u/s 190(1)(a) upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.

The Magistrate, after receipt of final report, has taken recourse to treat the protest petition as a complaint. This decision of the Magistrate is in accordance with the decision taken by this Court in the case of Pakhando (supra).

I don''t find any illegality in the impugned order. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.