B.K.RATHI,J. - (1.) THE F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No. 4 against the applicant and as many as eleven other per ­sons for offence under Section 395,1.P.C. on 19 -3 -1991. The police after investiga ­tion of the case submitted the final report. Notice was sent to the complainant -op ­posite party No. 4 by the Magistrate but she neither appeared nor filed any protest petition. The final report was therefore, accepted on 3 -6 -1994. Against that order t he opposite party No. 4 preferred a Criminal Revision No. 305 of 1994, which have been allowed by order dated 23 -2 -1999 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. He has quashed the order dated 3 -6 -1994, by which the final report was accepted and direction has been issued that the learned Magistrate will provide an op ­portunity to the opposite party No. 4 to file protest petition and thereafter shall pass proper order. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.
(2.) I have heard Sri M.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A.The opposite party No. 4 have been served personally but has not appeared and therefore, she could not be heard. However, I have gone through the record myself. It may be mentioned that after the final report was filed in the Court, notice was sent by the learned Magistrate to the opposite party No. 4. Notice was served on her personally but she did not appear. Thereafter bailable warrants were issued against her. In compliance of the same the opposite party No. 4 appeared and made a request for recall of the warrants which were recalled by order dated 26 -5 -1993. On that day 22 -7 -1993 was fixed but she did not appear on that date also. The matter thereafter remain pending for about one year before learned Additional Chief Judi ­cial Magistrate, Khurja and he has ac ­cepted the final report on 3 -6 -1994. Till that date she did not file any protest petition. The notice was served on her and she appeared in the Court on 26 -5 -1993 and got warrants cancelled. Even thereafter she did not file any protest petition and order was passed by the learned Additional Chief Judi ­cial Magistrate after a bout one year.
(3.) IN my opinion, there is no illegality in the order. There was no justification of keeping the matter pending indefinitely. In the circumstances the learned Addi ­tional Sessions Judge has erred in allowing the revision.;