- (1.) THIS application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Kameshwari Prasad Yadav, Avsan Ali, Prem and Hanuman with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.4.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate Shravasti in case No. 109/XII of 2001 whereby the final report has been rejected and applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 420 IPC and the judgement and order dated 31.3.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shravasti in Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2002 whereby the revision filed by the applicants has been dismissed. From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the FIR in case crime No. C -10 of 2000 under sections 467, 468, 420 IPC, P.S. Malhipur, District Shravasti has been lodged by the O.P. No. 4. After considering the same, protest petition has been treated as a complaint and thereafter the statement under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Considering the same, the learned Magistrate concerned recorded the opinion that on the basis of the complaint and statement recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the offence under sections 467, 468 and 420 IPC is made out and by rejecting the final report the applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 420 IPC and the case has been registered as complaint case. The order dated 22.4.2002 has been challenged by the applicants by way of filing the Crl. Revision No. 38 of 2002, the same has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Shravasti on 31.3.2006.
(2.) BEING aggrieved from the order dated 22.4.2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Shravasti and order dated 31.3.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shravasti the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. From the perusal of the order dated 22.4.2002 it appears that the O.P. No. 4 has filed the protest petition against the final report submitted in case crime No. C -10 of 2000, P.S. Malhipur, District Shravasti which has been treated as a complaint and thereafter the learned Magistrate concerned has recorded the statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicants only on the basis of the protest petition and statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., for taking the cognizance the learned Magistrate concerned has rejected the final report. It shows that learned Magistrate concerned has not committed any error in the prescribed procedure for taking the cognizance. It is not stage of the appreciation of the evidence. At this stage, it is to be seen whether on the basis of the allegation prima facie offence is made out or not. In the present case the learned Magistrate concerned has disclosed his opinion that on the basis of the allegation made under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. prima facie offence under sections 467, 468, 420 IPC is made out. It shows that the the impugned order dated 22.4.2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Shravasti is not suffering from any illegality or irregularities. It does not require any interference by this court. The learned revisional court has also not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 31.3.2006 by which the criminal revision filed by the applicants has been dismissed because it is a well reasoned order, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 22.4.2002 and 31.3.2006 is refused.
(3.) THE interim order dated 28.10.2006 is hereby vacated. However, considering the facts, circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appears before the court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in view of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 which has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P reported in 2009(4) S.C.C. 437. With this observation, this application is disposed of.;