Dismissed

Bitthal Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024CRLR/2409/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a complainant challenging the Metropolitan Magistrate's order treating a protest application as a complaint. The High Court held that the Magistrate had the authority to treat the application as a complaint rather than directing further investigation and found no merit in the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bitthal Gupta vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145225

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2409 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Bitthal Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Alok Kumar Srivastava,Shweta Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 3312 of 2023 (Bitthal Gupta Vs. Rajendra Prasad Gupta and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 35 of 2023, under Sections 147, 386, 420, 506, 120B IPC, police station Collectorganj, district Kanpur Nagar whereby protest application of the revisionist has been allowed treating the same as complaint case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is complainant in this case, who has lodged the first information report on 22.04.2023 under Sections 147, 386, , 420, 506, 120B IPC against five accused persons, namely, Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Gaurav Gupta, Aarti Pathak, Advocate Anshika Singh and Advocate Brijesh Verma, who are opposite party nos. 2 to 6 in the present case, in which after culmination of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted final report no. 26/23 dated 10.11.2023. Against the said final report, the revisionist preferred protest application but the same has been illegally treated as complaint. Much emphasis has been given by contending that learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar ought to have directed for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. which has not been done, hence impugned order dated 11.03.2024 is liable to be set aside.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. representing the State vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that even in a complaint case, if allegation discloses commission of cognizable offence, the accused persons can be summoned and in case of proving the case by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, their conviction is also possible. Hence, there is no illegality in the order dated 11.03.2024.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that main grievance of the complainant/revisionist was against the final report dated 10.11.2023, which has been allowed by the Magistrate concerned while accepting the protest application and rejecting the final report. I also find that after filing protest application by the complainant, three courses are open to Magistrate. He may either reject the protest application or may allow the protest application rejecting the final report with direction for further investigation or he may treat the protest application as complaint. In case of treating the protest application as complaint, the procedure prescribed for complaint case shall be followed. In the present case, protest application of the revisionist has been treated as complaint, hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 11.03.2024.

¶11

The instant Criminal Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Shubham

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bitthal Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bitthal Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chand and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Prabha Devi vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Guddi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Nandan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Saini vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhola and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others