JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh. J.
1. Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
2. This petition is filed against the order dated 8.8.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, whereby the final report No. 82 of 2002 dated 29.11.2002 submitted by the I.O. was accepted and the protest petition filed by the petitioner was rejected and the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Hathras in Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2003, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C., which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Hathras on 10.10.202. In pursuance of that order the F.I.R. was registered at the police station concerned and the matter was investigated by the police. Thereafter, the I.O. submitted final report. The petitioner filed protest petition against that final report. The protest petition filed by the petitioner was rejected and final report submitted by the I.O. was accepted. Against that order the petitioner filed criminal revision. The same was dismissed on 11.2.2005.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case the fair investigation was not done by the I.O. The protest petition was filed by the petitioner mentioning therein that the fair investigation was not done by the I.O. In such circumstances it was not proper for the learned Magistrate to rely upon the police report and to accept the final report.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Hathras also did not consider the manifest error committed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on 11.2.2005 without applying judicial mind.
6. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders because both the orders are well reasoned.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the petitioner has filed protest petition against the final report, with an allegation that fair investigation was not done by the I.O., so it was not proper for the learned Magistrate to rely upon the final report and to accept the same. It was proper for him to issue a direction for doing the further investigation or the protest petition filed by the petitioner would have been treated as a complaint, but by not passing such order the learned Magistrate passed the illegal order dated 8.8.2003, which is illegal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras also did not consider the manifest error committed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision on 11.2.2005. It is also illegal order. Consequently, the order dated 8.8.203 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Hathras and the order dated 21.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras are illegal and are hereby set aside.
8. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hathras is directed to pass a fresh order on the final report No. 82 of 2002 dated 29.112.2002 in accordance with the provisions of law.
9. With this observation the petition is finally disposed of.