Ravindranatha Bajpe vs Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. ... on 27 September, 2021
11. It is evident that during the course of investigation, statement of Nand Pal Singh was recorded, in which, he stated that he was the employee of Kedia Hospital and he was deployed at the Gate of the Hospital since 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M., as doctor was out of country, therefore, hospital was closed since 26.09.2009 to 04.10.2009, therefore, no patient visited the hospital. Statement of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal (compounder) of Kedia Hospital was also recorded and he also stated that on 26.09.2009 in the morning no patient in the name of Nagma visited to the hospital. Statements of Shashidhar Singh (owner of the house) as well as neighbour, namely, C.D. Cladias and Rewati Raman Mishra were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, they stated that on 28.09.2009 at 7:00 A.M. no such incident as alleged by the respondent No.2 was taken place. Statement of Rafiqeulla was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, he also denied the prosecution story and he also stated that the photo which is pasted in the complaint is Smt. Rajjan w/o Idrish and she is residing in Nepal, occasionally, she came here and Iliyas has manipulated documents and by placing the photo of Rajjan w/o Idrish, the prosecution in question has been initiated in the name of Nagma. As notice was published in the news paper by the Investigating Officer by which, respondent No.2 was called for recording her statement as well as medical examination, but she did not turn up, and thereafter, protest petition was filed, which was manipulated by Iliyas, who is the accused of plying illegal vehicle, as the protest petition was rejected by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich on 15.03.2011 and accepted the final report. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baharich has rightly considered the record of the Investigation, as Section 203 Cr.P.C. does not deal the circumstances, when the investigation is already conducted and final report was accepted and acceptance order was upheld by this Court, and thereafter, in case, any complaint is filed, then it is a duty of the Magistrate to consider the investigation report in the interest of justice as held by this Court in the case of Raes And Ors vs. State of U.P. and Anr (supra) and Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone LTD. and others (supra), the Magistrate has rightly considered and rejected the complaint and learned revisional court committed error for passing the impugned order ignoring the record of the investigation of case as the Investigation of the same allegation was already conducted, which was monitor by Senior Police Officer as well as Joint Director Prosecution, and thereafter, final report was submitted and which was accepted. Protest petition was filed by the respondent no.2 was rejected and against the said order, revision was filed, which was rejected. Against the revisional order, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was also filed and which was also rejected.