Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2369 of 2018 Revisionist :- Smt. Anita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Namit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.
P. Singh learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present Crl. revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.04.2018 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 Kasganj, under Sections 354(A), 354 (B), 506 Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 POCSO Act in Final Report No. 122 of 2018, thereby illegally accepting the final report submitted by the investigation agency in case crime no. 387 of 2017 State versus Manish Mishra.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that it appears from the first information report lodged by the revisionist for the offences in question against one Manish Mishra and also from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate in which specific allegation of rape has been levelled against the opposite party no. 2-Manish Mishra and three unknown persons. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer ignoring the said fact had submitted final report in order to shield the accused persons. It has been next argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the final report which was submitted by the Investigating Officer, the revisionist had no knowledge of the same, hence she did not appear before the Court of the learned Magistrate to file the protest petition against the same. He argued that though the notice was sent by the Court concerned before acceptance of final report, but the same was not served to her in accordance with law and the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting final report should be set aside on the said ground.
Learned AGA on the other hand, has opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist with respect to the service of notice and he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the two notices sent to the revisionist by the Additional District and Sessions Judge for filing her objection/ protest petition on the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and when the first notice which was to be served upon her sent, she was not found to be present at her house, and the two neighbours, namely, Sushil Pandey and Anil Kumar put their signatures on the notice dated 22.03.2018, when notice was taken to her for serving a copy of and the same has been annexed at pages-101 to 103 as Annexure no. 11 to the revision. The other notice which was issued to her on 02.04.2018 for appearing before the Court on 18.04.2012, when served to her by the constable Ashok Kumar, she refused to accept the same. A report to that effect has also been submitted by the said constable which appears from the notice, a certified copy of the same has also been annexed as Annexure no. 12 at pages 107-109. He submitted that the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1 Kasganj has rightly accepted the final report submitted in the matter by passing the impugned order 22.04.2018 observing that the revisionist refused to accept the notice sent by the Court for filing objection/protest petition and also did not appear before the Court, hence the said final report was accepted.
I have perused the impugned order dated 22.04.2018 passed by learned Magistrate and find that the same does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Hence the revision lacks merit. It is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Ashok Gupta