Vedmati vs State of U.P.& Others

A.K. Roopanwal, J.

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 1.11.08 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in criminal case no.1463/02, State of U.P. Vs. Gajadhar whereby an application moved by the prosecution under Section 323, Cr.P.C. for the committal of the case was rejected.

It appears from the record that the trial was on before the Magistrate under Section 323, I.P.C. After the statements of two witnesses the prosecution moved for the committal of the case with the aid of Section 323, Cr.P.C. That application was disposed of by the Magistrate just by a single order that no offence under Section 392, IPC is appearing at this stage.

Heard Mr. Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.

I astonish as to how the Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that no offence under Section 392, IPC was made out without even considering a single line of the statements of PW1 and PW2. This shows that the order was hurriedly passed and is not a reasoned order. It being an improper order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, revision is allowed. Order dated 1.11.08 is set aside. The matter is sent back to the Magistrate for passing a fresh order on the application of the prosecution by considering all the material available before the court till the date the order is passed on the application.