High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shyam Narayan Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Another - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 10730 of 2005  RD-AH 4514 (20 October 2005)
Hon'ble R.C.Deepak, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The principal submission raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that motor cycle no. UP 27D 0088 is the property of the petitioner and that is registered in his name. The first information report does not disclose the name of the petitioner as an accused but it is alleged that the driver of the said vehicle caused injuries to him due to his negligence driving of the said vehicle. The investigation into the case was made but the investigating officer submitted the final report. The petitioner filed the protest petition and the learned magistrate recorded the statements of the injured Ram Babu under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. After being satisfied, he summoned the petitioner under the relevant sections. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the identity of the petitioner as an accused could not be established. Therefore, the order, so passed by the learned magistrate, cannot be said to be a proper order.
I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the relevant documents. I am of the opinion that the learned magistrate did commit no wrong in passing the impugned order.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
In case the petitioner/accused thinks proper his identity as an accused is still required to be established he is at liberty to make such submission before the court below and the court below shall dispose of his objection, if any, in accordance with law.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.