Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17245 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Tapushyum @ Shabana And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S B Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in F.R. Case No.523 of 2018 (Mohammad Yusuf vs. Mahfuz Ali), arising out of Case Crime no.910 of 2017, u/s 420, 467, 468, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Etawah.
Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.
Counsel for the applicants has not been able to point out any such illegality, much less than any abuse of court's process which may persuade this Court to interfere in the impugned order or proceedings. The impugned order reflects judicial application of mind. After submission of the final report there are many options open before the Magistrate, he can reject the final report and differ with the inference drawn by the Investigating Officer. But at the same time if in his opinion there is sufficient material available in the case diary on the basis of which the cognizance may be taken he can well take cognizance on the material contained in the case diary and proceed with the matter as a State case taking cognizance u/s 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. It is also possible that he may accept the final report if he agrees with the inference drawn by the Investigation Officer. Another option open before the Magistrate is that he may treat the protest petition as a complaint and may proceed in the matter as a complaint case. Yet another option is that if he feels that the matter deserves some further investigation he can proceed to make the same order and ask the Investigating Officer to undertake further investigation into the case and submit his report.
In the present case the Court looked into the matter and found that perusal of the record showed several inadequacies of investigation and in such circumstances the court was not satisfied with the inference of submission of final report and deemed it proper to direct further investigation. This was a judicial discretion exercised by the court below and this Court does not see any flaw in the same exercise. There is no element of perversity reflected in the same. There is no good reason for this Court to substitute the discretion exercised by the Magistrate by its own.
Application lacks merit and therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 M. Kumar