Allahabad High Court
Ishahak Mohammad Khan vs State Of U.P. And 12 Others on 15 March, 2023
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42541 of 2022 Applicant :- Ishahak Mohammad Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), court no. 2, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2019, (Ishak Mohammad Khan Vs State of UP and others) as well as the order dated 4.7.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad, Shahjahanpur in Case Crime No. 123 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 427, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Paraur, District Shahjahanpur.
Initially an FIR was lodged by applicant against opposite party nos. 2 to 14 on 2.2.2016 vide Case Crime No. 123 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 427, 504, 506 IPC. Pursuant to the said FIR, investigation commenced and the Investigating Officer after conducting detailed investigation submitted final report against the respondents, whereupon notice was issued by the learned Magistrate to the applicant who in turn filed protest petition against the said final report contending that the Investigating Officer in connivance with the accused persons submitted the final report in the matter. Thereafter, learned Magistrate rejected the protest petition and accepted the final report vide its order dated 4.7.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, applicant filed a criminal revision, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2022. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this court.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that that the orders passed by both the courts below are nothing but in gross abuse of the power of the court and hence the impugned order are liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are absolutely just and legal and are in accordance with law and no interference is called for by this Court. He further submits that in the present case, after submission of the final report on the protest petition of the complainant, the courses available to the learned Magistrate on receiving the protest petition has been very well laid down by this Court in the case of Pakhando and others versus State of U.P. and another reported in 2001 (43) ACC 1096. The same reads as follows:-
"1. He may agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the police, accept the report and drop the proceedings. But before doing so, he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant; or
2. He may take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) and issue process straight way to the accused without being bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency, where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed; or
3. He may order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner;or
4. He may, without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued."
The aforesaid propositions of law are fortified by the judgement of Apex Court in the case of H.S. Bains, Director, Small Savings-cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), reported in Laws (SC-1980-10-22.
Perusal of the record discloses that on the submission of final report by the police against the accused respondents, the applicant had filed a protest petition whereby he has stated that the Investigating Officer, who had submitted the final report, has not recorded the statement of witnesses of applicant's side and under pressure of the accused persons (respondents) had filed the final report in the matter. The learned Magistrate after receiving the protest petition and after considering the material available on record accepted the final report, hence the court below was well withing its right in accepting the final report. This Court does not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below.
The prayer for quashing the impugned orders is refused. The application is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.3.2023 RavindraKSingh