- (1.) Heard Sri V. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.
(2.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 1-5-2002 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 4th. Mathura in case No. 116 of 1998, under Sections 304-B, 201 I. P. C., Police Station Math, District Mathura.
(3.) The facts giving rise to the dispute is that a first information report was registered at case crime No. 116 of 1998, under Sections 304-B, 201 I. P. C.. Police Station Math, Sub District Math, District Mathura against the husband and other family members. On the basis of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report on 1-10-1998 which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. Notice was issued to the complainant-opposite party No.2. He filed protest petition and affidavits. The Magistrate by means of the Impugned order rejected the final report and summoned the accused in exerise of under Section 190(1) (b) Cr. P. C. The submission on behalf of the applicants is that the deceased died on account of her illness and it is not a case of dowry death and, therefore, the Investigating Officer rightly submitted final report. In support of the contention, a decision of this Court, Gajendra Kumar Agarwal v. State of U. P., 1994 U. P. Criminal Rulings, 308 has been placed before me. Emphasis is that once a final report was submitted and in the event, the Magistrate is not in agreement, he should also give an opportunity of hearing to the accused and it is not only the complainant, who should be heard. I have gone through the said decision. In the said case, the protest petition was filed against the final report and the Court was of the view that the accused should also be given an opportunity of hearing.;