This Criminal Revision was filed against an order rejecting a protest petition in a theft case. The Court found no illegality in the Magistrate's acceptance of the investigating officer's final report and dismissed the revision.
Prayer for quashing the magisterial order was refused; the criminal revision was 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. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 418 of 2021 Revisionist :- Ram Bharat Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicantrevisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Agra in Criminal Case No. 595 of 2020 (Ram Bharat Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2020, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Malpura, District Agra.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the protest petition has been illegally rejected without considering the settled principles of law.
Perusal of the record shows that an FIR was lodged by the revisionist against the unknown persons on 15.02.2020 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Malpura, District Agra regarding theft of his silver coloured Scoda Fabia Car bearing Registration No. UP 80 BJ 8982 from Fauzi Dhaba near Nagla Sikarwar on 14.02.2020 at 11:15 p.m. After investigation a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer, against which revisionist filed the protest petition. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 16.12.2020 rejected the protest petition.
Perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the learned Magistrate after considering the case diary on the basis of which a final report was submitted and after going through the protest petition has come to the conclusion that there is no force in the protest petition and final report submitted by the investigating officer is based on the proper investigation. The learned court below while accepting the final report and rejecting the protest petition has not committed any irregularity or illegality. Even otherwise, the counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Magistrate.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the order impugned is hereby refused.
The revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Lbm/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene in the Magistrate's rejection of the protest petition.
If no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error exists, should the revision be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Bharat Upadhyay
State of U.P.
Vivek Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
