Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 7.4.2010 passed in protest petition No. 811 of 2008, under Sections 406, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (10) S.C./ S.T. Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, district Shahjahanpur by which the protest petition preferred by revisionist has been treated as complaint.
It comes out from the perusal of the record that after completing the investigation in case Crime No. 267 of 2007, under Sections 406, 420, 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section (1) (10) S.C./ S.T. Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, district Shahjahanpur, the Investigating Officer submitted the final report on 13.5.2007. The revisionist preferred the protest petition which has been treated as complaint. When the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is submitted in the court on completion of investigation, the learned Magistrate has option either to take cognizance on such police report or to order further investigation. On earlier occasion also the I.O. has submitted the final report on which the learned Magistrate has directed the I.O. to further investigate into the matter. Now the learned Magistrate has exercised the option of treating the protest petition as complaint. He is now proceeding to inquire into the matter himself and has adopted the procedure of complaint case as laid down in ChapterXV of Code of Criminal Procedure. It cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed any illegality by treating the protest petition as complaint.
I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 7.4.2010.
This criminal revision is thus found to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010 Rkb