The court dismissed the criminal revision preferring against the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order accepting the final police report. It held there was no illegality in the order. The court found no injury on the complainant or his family despite prosecution claims of assault and snatching.
The instant criminal revision is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 425 of 2014
Revisionist :- Mehrajuddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Aditya Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Manoj Vashisth,Rakesh Kr. Singh,Ram Raj Pandey,V.N. Mishra
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.1.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, whereby final report submitted by the police under Section 173, Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No.627A of 2012, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342, 420, 166, 167, 120-B, IPC, P.S. Sardhana, District Meerut was accepted and protest petition against final report submitted by the informant/revisionist was rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that revisionist and his wife have supported the version of the FIR in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. even though police has submitted final report. There is material evidence available in the police report even though learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, which is not sustainable.
Learned counsel for opposite party No.6 and learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.
As per prosecution version on 26.9.2012 in Court Campus of District Court, Meerut accused Vijay Prakash Yadav, Jitendra Singh, Constable 2509 Subodh Kumar, Constable 1520 Pradeep Kumar, H.C.P. 28 Narendra Sharma, Constable 2109 Ravindra Kumar, Constable (25 A P) Raj Kumar Giri, Constable 202 Narendra Gaur Shastri, Constable 2252 Samay Pal Mutaina, Constable 1305 Manoj Kumar and Constable (21 A P) Parmanand assaulted the complainant and his wife and snatched Rs.25,000/- from the complainant. In his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. informant has further added that accused have also assaulted his son Kasim, who was in judicial custody of the court. Time of occurrence is neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of the informant. There is no injury on the
person of the informant Mehrajuddin, his wife and his son Kasim. Accordingly, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Resultantly, the instant revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2018 T. Sinha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order accepting the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and rejecting the protest petition was sustainable in law.
Whether material evidence available in the police report supports the prosecution version despite the absence of injury on the complainant and his family.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mehrajuddin
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
