IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Rashmi Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 35595 of 2022
Decided On : 19-04-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 311 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 504, 506 and 427 - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 4, 10 - Quash order - Forged and fictitious signature - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved to quash order – An occasion was available to her to get expert opinion that signatures present on notices were not put by her but this remedy has not been availed by her. [Para 8]
Finding of the Court: If applicant was of view that her forged and fictitious signature had been obtained by police, an occasion was available to her to get expert opinion that signatures present on notices were not put by her but this remedy has not been availed by her - In Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra, it has been held that when on submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Magistrate decides to accept it and not to take cognizance and to drop proceeding against the all or some of accused, informant is entitled to a notice and opportunity to be heard at time of consideration of such final report - In this case before accepting final report, Magistrate had served notice upon applicant which was not availed by her - In view of above, present application lacks merit.
Result: Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Heard Sri Akash Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved to quash the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Dehat in Misc. Case No. 1319 of 2019 by which the final report in Crime No. 476 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506 and 427 of IPC and under Section 4/10 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 sent by Police Station Mangalpur, Kanpur Dehat was allowed and the Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2021 (Rashmi Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others) was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Court No. 7, Kanpur Dehat vide order dated 26.09.2022.
3. The facts of the case and ground of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in brief are that the applicant lodged an FIR on 18.12.2018 against opposite party nos. 2 to 5 under the aforesaid sections in which after investigation, the investigating officer (I.O.) submitted the final report No. 45 of 2019 on 14.04.2019 before the concerned Magistrate. According to the applicant the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Dehat accepted the said final report on 12.08.2021 without assigning any reason. At that time, there were holidays on account of COVID-19, hence the concerned police had not taken any receiving from the applicant with regard to the said final report and self posted signature of the applicant upon the notice was produced before the Court on 30.08.2021. When the applicant enquired, she came to know that the final report had been accepted on 12.8.2021, hence she filed the aforesaid criminal revision which has also been dismissed.
4. It is a settled law that service of notice before filing the final report is must, hence both the impugned orders be quashed and concerned Magistrate be directed to hear the matter on protest petition.
5. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the brother-in-law of the applicant along with the certified copy of the order sheets. Notices were sent to the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 which are served personally and through their family members but neither they appeared nor they filed any counter affidavit, hence heard Sri Akash Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that on 12.08.2021 the final report was accepted after service of notice upon the complainant but when the complainant did not appear on the date of hearing, the trial court heard the counsel for the State and perusing the record, concluded that on the basis of statement, inspection and other collected material, no commission of offence by the accused persons have been proved and therefore, accepted the final report. The order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I was challenged through Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2021 in which proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the applicant. The learned Revisional Judge found that the informant had appropriately been served through notices on 01.11.2019 and 11.08.2021 and her signatures were found thereon. It has also been noticed that on 04.10.2019, the final report had been submitted in the Court and thereafter notices were issued to her when there was no COVID-19 pandemic, hence the revision was dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved, the informant has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. According to this Court, if the applicant was of the view that her forged and fictitious signature had been obtained by the police, an occasion was available to her to get the expert opinion that the signatures present on the notices were not put by her but this remedy has not been availed by her.
9. Since the proper opportunity had been provided to the applicant and the notices were also served before accepting the final report,
It is a settled law that service of notice before filing final report is must.
Point of law: Cognizance of offence – set aside - Admittedly, when the notice was not served on the complainant and the impugned order was not within his knowledge, there was delay in approaching the....
An order accepting a final report under Section 362 Cr.P.C. is a final order that cannot be recalled without sufficient reasoning, although procedural reviews may be permissible under specific circum....
The Magistrate has the discretion to reject the final report and take cognizance of the offence, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report.
A Magistrate must provide clear reasons when disagreeing with a negative Final Report, and failing to do so renders the order unsustainable.
The Magistrate has the authority to reject a final report and take cognizance based on the material available, even if it disagrees with the conclusion of the investigating agency.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.