VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. - (1.) BY means of this revision preferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'), order dated 8.5.2000 passed by the 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Kanpur Nagar in the criminal case arising out of Crime No. 641 of 1999, under Sections 498-A, 325, 504, IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar has been challenged.
(2.) BY the impugned order, final report submitted by the police in the aforesaid case has been accepted without passing any order on the protest petition filed by the revisionist against the said final report. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts emerging from the record leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist (hereinafter to be referred as 'the complainant') impleading (1) Sri Brinda Prasad Tiwari, (2) Ram Sewak, (3) Devi Sewak, (4) Durga Sewak, (5) Badri Narain, (6) Smt. Kamla, (7) Smt. Ramlal, (8) Smt. Lata, (9) Smt. Sarita and (10) Smt. Pramil as opposite parties. On the basis of the order passed by the magistrate concerned on that application, an FIR was lodged on 19.7.1999 at PS. Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar, where a case under Sections 498A, 323, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered at Crime No. 641 of 1999 against the aforesaid persons. After investigation, the police submitted final report, against which the complainant filed protest petition on 10.11.1999, in support whereof she filed her affidavit. The Court below vide impugned order without passing any order on the protest petition filed by the complainant, accepted the final report vide impugned order dated 8.5.2000. Hence this revision.
(3.) WHEN the revision was taken up for hearing in the revised list, the counsel for the respondents did not appear. Hence I have heard arguments of Sri Mayank Bhushan learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Otherwise also the accused persons/respondents have no right to contest this revision, as no process has been issued against them so for to summon them to face the trial.;