AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Roopanwal, J.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 25.10.08 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, Agra in F.R. Case.
Heard Mr. A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record. Mr. Raghuveer Singh has put in appearance for O.P. No.2. As Mr. Sihgh has no locus standi to oppose this revision, hence, he is not allowed to advance arguments.
It has been argued by Mr. Srivastava that this proposition of law cannot be disputed that the Magistrate has ample powers to proceed as a complaint case when the protest petition is filed against a final report but that power must be utilised on sound judicial principles. Mr. Srivastava says that inspite of the fact that sufficient material was there in the case diary to take straightway cognizance under Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. the Magistrate without assigning any reason had chosen to proceed as a complaint case which cannot be said to be justified. I do agree with Mr. Srivastava.
What transpires from the impugned order is that the trial Magistrate without assigning any reason decided to treat the matter as a complaint case. This cannot be said to be a justified approach of the Magistrate. There should have been reason as to why the Magistrate had chosen to proceed as a complaint case and because this was not done, hence, this order is, definitely, an unreasoned order and cannot be said to be on sound judicial principles necessary for a judicial order.
Accordingly, revision is allowed. Order dated 25.10.08 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Magistrate for passing a reasoned order on the basis of all the material before him.