- (1.) Vakalatnama filed by Sri Dharmendra Kumar Mishra on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Aligarh in criminal case No. 284 of 2011 (Meera Devi v. Neeraj and Another) as well as order dated 2.11.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Aligarh in criminal revision No. 413 of 2011 (Neeraj and Another v. State of U.P. and Another) under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Gandhi Park, Aligarh.
(2.) In crime No. 58 of 2011 under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Gandhi Park, Distt. Aligarh, the police submitted final report. The complainant (respondent No. 2) filed protest petition. Learned Magistrate, by order dated 29.4.2011, rejected the final report, accepted the protest petition and summoned the petitioner Neeraj as well as co-accused Umesh to face trial under Section 307 IPC. It was further observed that the cognizance was being taken under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. and the case shall proceed as a State case.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that alongwith the protest petition, affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses were submitted by the complainant and the Magistrate has also considered extraneous material while taking cognizance. The further submission is that the protest petition was accepted by the Magistrate, which impliedly means that extraneous material was considered.;