Sudama vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18412

Court No. - 79

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12807 of 2024

Petitioner :- Sudama Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Keshav Hari Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Keshav Hari Dixit, learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Present petition has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 11, Etawah in Criminal Revision no. 77 of 2024 (Annexure No. 1) & the impugned order dated 27.3.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah (Annexure no. 2).

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a FIR was lodged by the petitioner against respondent nos. 2 to 8 under sections 147, 148, 452, 504, 506 & 323 registered as Crime no. 0306 of 2021, alleging therein that respondent nos. 2 to 8 entered into the house of petitioner and due to dispute relating to election of 'Gram Pradhan' had assaulted the petitioner, his son and his daughter-inlaw by lathi-danda causing injuries to them. After recording statements of complainant and other witnesses and concluding investigation, the concerned authority submitted final report in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 8.

¶9

Against the final report, petitioner filed a protest petition before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah along with some supporting affidavits, but the same was registered as complaint case vide impugned order dated 27.03.2023. Being aggrieved with order dated 27.03.2023, petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision no. 77 of 2024 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.07.2024.

¶10

While challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for petitioner argued that both the learned courts below have committed manifest error of law and have not applied their judicial mind since three persons received injuries and the concerned

¶11

police has investigated the case in a most unfair manner and wrongly submitted the final report ignoring the material evidences available on record. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Pakhandu and others vs. State of U.P. and others; 2001 (43) ACC 1096 wherein, it has been held under as under:

¶12

"15. From the aforesaid decisions, it is thus clear that where the Magistrate receives final report the following four courses are open to him and he may adopt any one of them as the facts and circumstances of the case may require :-

¶13

(I) He may agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the police, accept the report and drop the proceedings. But before so doing, he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant; or

¶14

(II) He may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) and issue process straightway 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

¶15

(III) he may order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner, or

¶16

(IV) 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."

¶17

Lastly, it is submitted that considering the nature of instant case, learned Magistrate should have directed for further investigation.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition and supported the orders impugned.

¶19

After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the records, this Court finds that in the light of judgment of Pakhandu (supra) four options are available before learned Magistrate while dealing with final report and it is apparent from the record and undisputed that one of the options has already been availed by learned court concerned while passing impugned order dated 27.3.2023 by way of registering the protest petition as complaint case, which has been rightly upheld by learned revisional court. In the instant case, the facts are within the petitioner's knowledge, which could be adduced during the inquiry conducted by the court concerned under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C and as such no infirmity is available in the impugned orders which may warrant any kind of

¶20

interference of this Court.

¶21

Having regard to the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

The petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶23

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Shaswat

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudama v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Upadhyay vs State of U.P.

Smt. Khushbu Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Shreya Kesarwani and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinay Kumar Pandey vs State of Up and Another

Ashok Verma Ex-Secretary, Pnu Club and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Renu Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others