RAVINDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 5 -2 -2003, passed by the learned C.J.M. Ghaziabad, and the judgment and order dated 15 -10 -2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2003, by which the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 5 -2 -2003 passed by the learned C.J.M., Ghaziabad was upheld. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. was lodged by one Nitin Garg, the son of the petitioner. The investigation was done by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, he submitted a final report, which was filed in the Court of learned C.J.M., Ghaziabad. Notice was issued to the first informant from the Court of learned C.J.M., though the first informant had died on 16 -7 -2002, so there was no question of his appearance in the Court then the petitioner filed a protest petition, clearly mentioning therein that his son who has lodged the F.I.R. has died but his protest petition was not considered by the learned C.J.M., Ghaziabad and final report dated 31 -10 -2002 was accepted only on the ground that the first informant has died and the order accepting the final report is highly improper. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred the case of M/s. J.K. International v. State of U.P., reported in 2001(1) JIC 815 (SC) : 2001 (Vol. 42) A.C.C. 719, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) IT is further contended that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind in accordance with the provisions of law and he has not passed a reasoned order, it was passed in routine and mechanical manner without considering the material collected by Investigating Officer during investigation and the same mistake was committed by the learned revisional Court, as such, both the orders are illegal and are liable to be set aside.;