Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4949 of 2018 Appellant :- Babhani Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Krishna Dubey,Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant today in the Court, is taken on record.
Admit.
Lower court record need not be summoned.
The present appeal has been filed under section 14-A (1) of S.C./S.T. Act against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2 Bhadohi Gyanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.16 of 2018 (Babhani Devi Vs. Mohd. Hazi Umar) Case Crime No.17 of 2018, under sections 504, 506, 420 IPC, 3(1) (Da) and 3(1) (Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Bhadohi, District Bhadohi.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant lodged a F.I.R. against respondent no.2 under sections 504, 506, 420 IPC, 3(1) (Da) and 3(1) (Dha) S.C./S.T. Act for the fraud played on her in getting the agreement for sale of her property executed without her knowledge; that the appellant has filed Civil Suit No.725 of 2016 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gyanpur at Bhadohi for cancellation of above agreement for sale; that the respondent no.2 is an influential person and in collusion with him, Investigating Officer submitted final report without making any inquiry from appellant; that the appellant was not served with any notice of final report and the alleged service by refusal in presence of witnesses Mujib Ahmad and Monu is wrong and incorrect;
that no notice was affixed at the house of appellant and the alleged witnesses of refusal Mujib Ahmad and Monu are own man of respondent no.2; that had appellant any notice of submission of final report, she would not have moved another application before S.P., Bhadohi on 6.6.2018 (S.A.-2) and would have filed protest petition against final report.
Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned order.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that the impugned order, which has been passed upon deeming service of notice on first informant in view of alleged refusal without actual knowledge of submission of final report by the Investigating Officer to her, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appeal is liable to be allowed.
The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
The matter is remitted back to court below for afresh and expeditious disposal of final report in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of filing protest petition, to the appellant.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Tamang