Reserved
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12498 of 2015 Petitioner :- Suresh Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Kashyap,Ankit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Swetashwa Agarwal
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 20.2.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No. 10765 of 2010, Suresh Chand v. Ram Kumar and others, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Bulandshahr as well as order dated 19.2.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Revision No. 88 of 2013.
Brief reference of the factual aspects would suffice. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against respondent nos. 4 to 8 for obvious reasons. On the said application of the petitioner the learned court below directed the concerned police station to lodge a first information report against respondent nos. 4 to 8. The investigation was completed and a final report was submitted on 19.2.2008. On 25.6.2008 the petitioner against the said final report moved a protest petition which was also rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 15.11.2008. Challenging the said rejection the petitioner preferred a revision which was also rejected by the learned revisional court vide its order dated 15.11.2008. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioner preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.1 before this Court which was allowed on 1.9.2010 remitting the matter back to the learned court below to pass a fresh order after considering the material on record including the protest petition.
1 Application U/s 482 No. 27888 of 2010 (Suresh Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P.) Again on 25.11.2010 after considering all the facts, the learned Magistrate rejected the final report which was submitted by the investigating officer and respondent nos. 4 to 8 were summoned under Sections 307, 323, 452, 504, 506 and 120B IPC.
Feeling aggrieved the respondent nos. 4 to 8 preferred a revision against the summoning order dated 25.11.2010 but the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr rejected their revision vide order dated 22.7.2011. Challenging the said rejection the respondent nos. 4 to 8 filed a writ petition2 before this Court which was allowed by this Court on 4.8.2011 with a direction to the court below to dispose of the revision on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate rejected the final report which was submitted by the Investigating Officer as well as the summoning order passed by the learned court below. The statements of the petitioner as well as eyewitnesses were examined and recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. After perusing the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner as well as witnesses, the learned court below rejected the complaint on 20.2.2013. Against the rejection order passed by the learned Magistrate the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr who also rejected the revision vide order dated 19.2.2015.
Further contention of the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 4 has a criminal history of 13 cases and the petitioner has sustained injuries which were not taken into consideration by the learned court below while passing the aforesaid orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgement of this Court in the case of Gopal Tiwari v. State of U.P. Anr.3 Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended
2 Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14960 of 2011 (Ram Kumar Gupta and others v. State of U.P. & another)
3 2016(1) JIC 106 (All) that the lower revisional court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in passing the orders impugned. He has placed reliance on the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar & Anr.4; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others5; Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and others6; Smt. Chhaya William v. State of U.P.7; and Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary and others8.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 20.2.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No. 10765 of 2010 as well as order dated 19.2.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision No. 88 of 2013 which may warrant interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :-18.12.2019 Digamber
4 2011 (1) JIC 443 (SC)
5 (1998) 5 SCC 749
6 (2008) 5 SCC 668
7 2004 (1) JIC 381
8 (2010) 7 SCC 578