- (1.) Heard Sri Vikas Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.3014/2014 (Smt. Ashia Begum vs. Hasan Khan), under Sections 452/354 IPC, P.S. Tehrauli, Jhansi, and orders dated 4.8.2014/23.3.2015, passed by Judicial Magistrate as well as order dated 4.7.2015, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Criminal Revision No.87/2015. Brief facts are as under:- The O.P. No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C on 14.7.2010. The Magistrate on 23.7.2010 directed for lodging of the FIR / the investigation of the case and pursuant thereto on 4.8.2010, the FIR was registered against the applicants as Case Crime No.338/2010 under Sections 323/354/452/504/506 IPC, P.S. Tehrauli, Jhansi. After investigation, the I.O. submitted a final report on 18.9.2010 on the ground that the prosecution was launched by O.P. No.2 out of sheer animosity to compel the applicants to withdraw the complaint. The O.P. No.2 filed a protest alleging that the I.O. did not investigate the matter fairly and submitted a final report without verifying the correct facts. The Magistrate on 27.6.2011, directed the protest to be treated as a complaint, who after considering the statements of O.P. No.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C and her witnesses Pyare Lal/Smt. Batto Devi under Section 202 Cr.P.C and after perusing the materials on record, proceeded to summon the applicant under Sections 354/452 IPC on 10.1.2012. The applicant assailed the order dated 10.1.2012 in Criminal Revision No.71/2012, which came to be allowed on 26.2.2013, whereby the orders dated 27.6.2011 and 10.1.2012 were set aside and the matter remanded to the court below to pass fresh orders in the light of observations made therein. Pursuant thereto, the Magistrate under order dated 4.8.2014, was of the view that as certain documents forming part of the case diary, i.e., the injury report, supports the contention of the complainant/O.P. No.2, but in the affidavits filed by her along with protest, there are certain contradictions, which could only be clarified after complainant's evidence, it directed for treating the protest as a complaint and disposed of the final report. The Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant and the two witnesses on 23.3.2015, again summoned the applicant under Sections 354/452 Cr.P.C. The applicants challenged the order dated 23.3.2015 in Criminal Revision No.87/2015, unsuccessfully on 4.7.2015.
(3.) The sole contention urged is that in spite of the specific order of the revisional court dated 26.2.2013/4.7.2015, the courts below did not passed any orders as to the fate of the final report, thus the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Pakhandu vs. State of U.P., 2002 1 JIC 104 , and that of Learned Single Judge in the case of Hanuman Prasad and another vs. State of U.P. And another, 2009 3 JIC 732 .;