Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Umesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 5872 of 2023
Decided On : 31-05-2024
CRIMINAL REVISION - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Sections 190, 397, 401, 173 - The court discussed the powers of a Magistrate under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of offences based on police reports and the necessity for the Magistrate to apply judicial discretion. It emphasized that the Magistrate is not bound by the police's conclusions and must consider the evidence presented, including protest petitions. The court also highlighted the limitations of the Revisional Court in re-evaluating evidence and stressed the importance of judicial reasoning in accepting or rejecting final reports.
Fact of the Case:
An FIR was lodged by Nanhe Lal Yadav against Umesh Singh and Vivek Singh for attempted murder and other charges. After investigation, the police submitted a final report exonerating the accused due to lack of evidence. The Magistrate accepted this report, leading to a revision by the informant, which was partially allowed by the Revisional Court, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate had properly exercised his discretion in accepting the final report after considering the evidence and the protest petition. The Revisional Court's decision to remand the case was deemed erroneous as it failed to recognize the Magistrate's judicial reasoning.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate correctly accepted the final report and whether the Revisional Court had the authority to remand the case for fresh consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a Magistrate has the discretion to accept or reject a final report based on the evidence presented, and the Revisional Court cannot re-evaluate evidence unless there is a clear legal error or miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The order of the Revisional Court was set aside, affirming the Magistrate's acceptance of the final report, while allowing the informant the opportunity to file a fresh complaint if desired.
JUDGMENT :
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd Raghib Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Satya Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I assisted by Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, P.C. Act (U.P.S.I.B.), Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No. 130 of 2022 [Nanhelal Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others], arising out of . Case Crime No. 60 of 2016, F.R. No. 20010/2017, under Sections 307, 427, 34 IPC, Police Station-Uruwa Bazar, District-Gorakhpur.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The facts in brief which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this revision are that:
(ii) During investigation, the statement of injured; Budhiram Yadav was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 04.06.2016 in which he reiterated the version of the FIR.
(iii) The field unit has inspected Bolero car No. UP53 BK 8201 and prepared the memo, which is evident from case dairy dated 08.06.2016. From the aforesaid, it is clear that no other witness or any accused person was found at the place of incident.
(iv) The case was transferred from Police Station Uruwa Bazar to Police Station Khajni by order dated 07.07.2016. The same finds place at Parcha No. X dated 07.07.2016 in the case dairy.
(v) The second Investigating Officer interrogated the witness Ram Das and Ramai Bind on 04.08.2016 and recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Both the witnesses have supported the FIR version and Ram Das has stated that he was sitting in the back seat along with Ramai Bind and Rambrichh. He also said that three bullets were fired from the front and two from the rear of the vehicle.
(vi) In pursuant of the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by Superintendent of Police (crime), the case was again transferred from the po
An order summoning an accused in a criminal case is not an interlocutory order and revision is maintainable. The Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue an....
A Magistrate must ensure sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused without engaging in a trial-like analysis of evidence.
The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is limited to finding out the truth or otherwise of the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate is empowered to direct further investigation if the police investigation is found to be perfunctory, and the victim or close re....
A Magistrate must independently evaluate evidence and not solely rely on police conclusions when dismissing a complaint; proper procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed.
A Magistrate must judiciously consider the material on record and form an opinion as to whether a prima facie case is made out before taking cognizance of an offence. A person ought not to be dragged....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
