Rameshwar vs State of U.P.

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record.

This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rai Bareli in Crl Misc Case No. 151 of 2010 (Rameshwar v. State of U.P.) and to quash the judgment and order dated 23.05.2010 passed by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Rai Bareli in Case No. 49 of 2010, u/s 379 I.P.C., Police Station Harchandpur, District Rai Bareli as well as for directing the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Rai Bareli to pass afresh order in terms of final report dated 04.04.2010 submitted by the police of police station Harchandpur, Rai Bareli.

The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on the written report of complainant (present petitioner), police of police station Harchandpur, District Rai Bareli registered a case u/s 379 I.P.C. against the unknown accused for investigation. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation within 24 hours and submitted final report in the matter with the finding that no such vehicle of the complainant had been stolen. The Investigating Officer recommended for initiating criminal proceeding against the complainant u/s 182 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, petitioner approached to the higher police authorities and requested for further investigation of the case. On the application of the petitioner, the order for further investigation of the case was passed. The subsequent Investigating Officer after investigation of the case found that the theft of the complainant''s Bolero car had been proved, but neither the thieves nor the vehicle could trace out. Consequently, he submitted final report in the court concerned. The petitioner (complainant) himself, thereafter, moved an application for accepting final report which was allowed by the learned Magistrate who observed that prima facie, no such incident as alleged by the complainant had taken place. This finding is against the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, petitioner (complainant) has no option except to file revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Rai Bareli against the observation made by the learned Magistrate, but the same was dismissed in limine.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no grievance in accepting the final report; rather the final report was accepted on his application. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the observation made by the learned Magistrate that no such incident had taken place is against the record which is liable to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition.

Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

I have gone through the impugned order as well as material available on record.

From a perusal of the subsequent final report, it appears that the subsequent Investigating Officer has concluded the investigation filing final report dated 04.04.2010, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure No. 9 to the petition. From a perusal of the final report, it appears that Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned that the Bolero car was stolen by unknown thieves but neither the accused nor the vehicle could trace out, therefore the final report is being submitted in the matter. The observation made by the learned Magistrate that no such incident has taken place is against the record which is liable to be quashed and the petition deserve to be allowed.

The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rai Bareli in Crl Misc Case No. 151 of 2010 (Rameshwar v. State of U.P.) and the order dated 23.05.2010 passed by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Rai Bareli in Case No. 49 of 2010, u/s 379 I.P.C., Police Station Harchandpur, District Rai Bareli are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rai Bareli with the observation that he will consider the application of the petitioner afresh and after going through the final report dated 04.04.2010 submitted by the Investigating Officer will pass fresh order on the application of the petitioner.