Narayan Shanker Sharma vs State of U.P. and Others

B.K. Rathi, J.—The F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No. 4 against the applicant and as many as eleven other persons for offence u/s 395, I.P.C. on 19.3.1991. The police after investigation of the case submitted the final report. Notice was sent to the complainant opposite party No. 4 by the Magistrate but she neither appeared nor filed any protest petition. The final report was therefore, accepted on 3.6.1994. Against that order the opposite party No. 4 preferred a Criminal Revision No. 305 of 1994, which have been allowed by order dated 23.2.1999, passed by I Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. He has quashed the order dated 3.6.1994, by which the final report was accepted and direction has been issued that the learned Magistrate will provide an opportunity to the opposite party No. 4 to file protest petition and thereafter shall pass proper order. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

I have heard Sri M. S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. The opposite party No. 4 have been served personally but has not appeared and therefore, she could not be heard. However, I have gone through the record myself.

It may be mentioned that after the final report was filed in the Court, notice was sent by the learned Magistrate to the opposite party No. 4. Notice was served on her personally but she did not appear. Thereafter, bailable warrants were issued against her. In compliance of the same the opposite party No. 4 appeared and made a request for recall of the warrants which were recalled by order dated 26.5.1993. On that day 22.7.1993, was fixed but she did not appear on that date also. The matter thereafter remain pending for about one year before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, and he has accepted the final report on 3.6.1994. Till that date she did not file any protest petition. The notice was served on her and she appeared in the Court on 26.5.1993, and got warrants cancelled. Even thereafter she did not file any protest petition and order was passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after about one year.

In my opinion, there is no illegality in the order. There was no justification of keeping the matter pending indefinitely. In the circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in allowing the revision.

It may also be mentioned that it appears from the F.I.R. that the opposite party No. 4 was tenant in the house of the revisionist. The F.I.R. was lodged against the landlord and his eleven family members including the ladies for offence u/s 395, I.P.C. It was filed in the year 1991. The police after investigation found the case to be false. The opposite party No. 4 did not file protest petition inspite of the service of the notice and she taking her F.I.R. as a luxury litigation. Her sole purpose was to harass the revisionist and his family members. In these circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in setting aside the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja.

The revision is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the I Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision No. 305 of 1994 on 23.2.1999 is quashed and that of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja is restored.