Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4134 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ram Sevak @ Balak Ram And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vivek Tiwari,K.S. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set-aside the order dated 8.10.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC 1st, Auraiya in criminal revision no. 11 of 2018 arising out of case crime no. 211 of 2013 under Sections 302 and 506 IPC, P.S. Vidhuna, District Auraiya. Further prayer has been made to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 8.10.2018.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that they have not committed the present offence. Allegations levelled against them are false. Investigation in the matter was done fairly, thoroughly and properly and all the allegations made against the revisionists cannot be sustained. The revisional court erred in passing the impugned order, which requires interference by this Court. Notice was properly served upon complainant. Since no protest petition was filed, final report was accepted by the Magistrate concerned. Thus, on this ground also finding recorded by lower revisional court is illegal. At this juncture, learned counsel for the revisionists referred to the observations made by the lower revisional court in the impugned order.
On the other hand, learned AGA submits that the Magistrate concerned ought to have ensured service of notice as per the settled law to the complainant before accepting the final report. Vide impugned order matter has been remitted back to the Magistrate concerned for passing fresh order after affording opportunity to the complainant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
In this matter, as is evident from record, on completing the investigation the Investigating Officer filed final report before the Magistrate concerned, which was accepted by him without ensuring that notice was actually served upon the complainant or not. Further, if discussions made by the lower revisional court in the impugned order and the documents annexed with the present application are analyzed with the submissions made by learned counsel for revisionists (accused persons), it emerges that there is specific denial of the complainant that notice said to have been issued on the final report was not served upon her and service report was filed on the basis of her forged signature. Court below while passing the impugned order in the criminal revision has discussed the submissions raised by the complainant and compared the same with record and was of the opinion that service of notice shown in the order dated 20.4.2015 was based on clerical mistake. The rervisional court was also of the opinion that in fact no opportunity was given to the complainant to file protest petition nor she was ever served about the filing of final report. It has also been observed by the lower revisional court that the matter relates to the offence under Sections 302 IPC. Hence, allowing the criminal revision, order dated 20.4.2015 passed by the concerned Magistrate was set aside. If such was the position, the order passed by the lower revisional court cannot be said to be illegal or without application of judicial mind.
In view of the above discussions, in my opinion, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Revision lacks merits and is liable to the dismissed.
The criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 safi