Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 648 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ramjeet Gupta And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Gupta,Shesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Sant Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgement and order dated 29.1.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda in Criminal Misc. Case No.204 of 2017 (now Case No.172/IX of 2018) (Rajendra Kumar Vs. Ramjeet and others) arising out of Case Crime No.264 of 2016 under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S.Bisanda, District Banda.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has agreed that he does not propose to file counter affidavit at this stage and the matter may be disposed of by this Court.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has challenged the impugned order dated 29.1.2018 whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. after rejection of final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. The learned Magistrate has passed the order in a most mechanical and cursory manner without recording satisfaction that there was sufficient material/evidence in the case diary collected during investigation to prima facie make out an offence as stated above against the revisionists.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that F.I.R. against the revisionists was registered by moving an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and the same was based mainly on the suspicion and conjectures. During investigation the Investigation Officer could not collect any evidence which could establish, prima facie, participation of the revisionists especially revisionist nos. 1, 2 and 3 regarding their involvement in the commission of crime. Learned counsel states that in the protest petition there was specific averment that during investigation neither first informant-opposite party no.2 nor any of the witnesses was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer in collusion with accused in an arbitrary manner submitted final report in favour of the revisionists. Therefore, apparently there was no material based on which the revisionists could have been summoned after rejecting the final report. He has further pointed out that in the impugned order learned Magistrate has relied on averments made in the affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 along with protest petition and has recorded that investigation in the present case was faulty, yet the revisionists have been illegally summoned after rejecting the closure report.
I have carefully perused the allegations made in the F.I.R. and impugned order.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 could not refute the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists. He has further stated that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the matter is remanded back to the court below to pass order afresh in accordance with law.
The impugned order dated 29.1.2018 is hereby set aside with the direction to the court concerned to pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh after recording satisfaction based on the material collected during investigation and without being prejudiced by any observation made hereinabove independently.
With the aforesaid, direction/observation, this revision stands allowed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 MN/-