YOGENDRA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Yogendra v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 12681 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17201 (4 October 2006)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 45

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 12681 OF 2006

Ajit Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.

Heard Sri Devendra Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The orders dated 20.7.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat and 28.9.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat are impugned in the instant writ petition.

A first information report was registered against the petitioner nos. 2,3,4 and 5 under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. The police submitted final report after completing the investigation. A notice was issued to the complainant. The complainant had no objection whatsoever to the report submitted by the police. The learned Magistrate did not agree with the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and clearly recorded a finding that though the complainant has no objection in accepting the final report but on perusal of the evidence, statements and injury report, he refused to accept the final report dated 15.6.2003 in case crime No. 171 of 2003. He summoned the accused after taking cognizance under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C. This order was challenged in revision which was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indian Air Gases Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2005 (52) ACC, 651. The submission is that the report submitted by the Investigating Officer was not a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Since it was not submitted by the competent authority, Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. requires that the officer incharge of the police station shall forward to the Magistrate a report and thereafter the Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance. In the instant case the final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, it can not be said to be a proper report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned Magistrate has clearly recorded his conclusion after perusing the documents and statements and has taken cognizance. I do not find that there is any illegality whatsoever in the impugned orders. The submission of the learned counsel is without any basis. The Magistrate has taken cognizance after hearing the complainant and has refused to agree with the request of the first informant. This order has been confirmed in revision. No good ground for interference is made out. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Dt/-   .10.2006.

Rmk.  

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.