Hon’ble Shiv Shanker, J.—This petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the orders dated 6.7.2006 and 25.7.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Varanasi and Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi respectively. It is further prayed that the concerned Magistrate be directed to conduct the proceedings according to the provisions of Sections 190 and 204, Cr.P.C. for summoning the accused.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the material available on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application moved under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner was allowed by the concerned Magistrate by passing the order of registering and investigating the case. The case was registered and investigated and the charge-sheet was submitted to the S.S.P. concerned but the S.S.P. concerned has directed for re-investigation upon the said charge-sheet. The same was not filed before the concerned Court for taking cognizance.

4. After re-investigation of the matter a final report was submitted and the same was filed in the concerned Court alongwith the previous charge-sheet. Thereafter the petitioner appeared and filed a protest petition against the final report which was rejected and the final report was accepted vide order dated 7.8.2003 passed by the concerned Magistrate. This order was challenged by way of filing Criminal Revision No. 266 of 2003. The said revision was allowed and the matter was remanded for deciding afresh. Thereafter objection was filed on behalf of the alleged accused whose names were mentioned in the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.

5. The concerned Magistrate has considered the objection filed on behalf of the said accused and again the protest petition was rejected and final report was accepted. Thereafter the petitioner has again to filed criminal revision. The same was also dismissed by considering the defence case of the accused while the alleged accused had no locus standi to file the objection and to hear in the Court. It is further contended that the protest petition was to be decided merely on the basis of the case of prosecution as the case taken in the protest petition but the case of accused cannot be considered either by the concerned Magistrate regarding the final report as well as by the revisional Court. Therefore, both the Courts below have committed illegality in considering the case of the alleged accused person in rejecting the protest petition and accepting the final report.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has urged that both the Courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders and the same had been passed according to law.

7. Learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the alleged accused person whose names have already been mentioned in the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. at the time of hearing of the objection upon which Sri D.S. Misra has objected that he has no locus standi.

8. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner has force regarding no locus standi of the learned Counsel for the accused to make arguments as they had not been summoned for trial and no process has been issued against them. The same view has been reiterated in the following decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court :

1. Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005 SCC (Cri) 404

2. Ranjeet Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2000(1) A.Cr.R. 1 (F.B.).

3. Pratap and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1995(2) JIC 2040 (All).

4. Shesh Nath Tiwari v. State of U.P. and another, 1998 (2) A.Cr.R. 1506.

9. It has been observed in the decision of Pakhando and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2001 (43) ACC 1096, as under :

“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 :

(I) he may