- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 27-2-2007 passed by the learned Special Judge D. A. A. Mainpuri in F. R. No. 11 of 2006 in case Crime No. 967 of 2004 P. S. Kotwali District Mainpuri whereby the application dated 6-2- 2007 filed by the applicant has been rejected. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case final report has been submitted by the I. O. The F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Harnam Singh, after submission of the charge-sheet notice has been issued only to Harnam Singh for filing the protest petition. The applicant and one Ram Lal are also the victim. They have lodged the written report to the police station Kotwali in respect of the same incident. Therefore, the application dated 6-2-2007 was filed by one Jai Ram with a prayer that notice may be issued to one Ram Lal for filing protest petition. Thereafter, proper order may be passed on the final report after hearing the applicant and Ram Lal but the learned Special Judge has rejected the application filed by the applicant on 27-2-2007. The impugned order dated 27-2-2007 is illegal because the applicant and one Ram Lal are also victim of this case and they have filed the written report to the police station concerned in respect of the said incident. Therefore, they also entitled to be summoned to make objection or to file protest petition against the final report. It is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that the F. I. R. lodged by Harnam Singh shows that his son has been murdered by the only persons who are named in the F. I. R. In that F. I. R. there is no reference about the version given by the applicant and Ram Lal. According to law notice is always issued to the first informant of the case and not to other persons including the victim etc. , in the present case, notice has been issued to Harnam Singh who had filed the protest petition, the same is pending. The learned Special Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstance of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and from the perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Special Judge has expressed the opinion that the applicant and other person may file the affidavit etc. against the final report but no notice can be issued to summon him to file the protest petition. The protest petition has already been filed by the first informant. The law does not require that notice be issued to the witnesses including the victim etc. The learned Special Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused. However, as observed by the learned Special Judge, in the impugned order that the applicant may file the affidavit etc. on the police report in case such affidavits or objections are filed by the applicant, the same may be considered and disposed of after affording the opportunity of being heard to the applicant or his Counsel.;