Ahibaran Kumar v. State of U.P. & others), whereby aforementioned criminal revision arising out of

Applicant :- Ahibaran Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manvendra Nath Singh, Vipin Gangwar,G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing prospective accused opposite parties 2 and 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by first informant Ahibaran Kumar challenging the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 1420 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 288 of 2023, under Sections 302, 328 I.P.C. Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly as well as the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2024 (Ahibaran Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others), whereby aforementioned criminal revision arising out of order dated 20.01.2024 filed by applicant was rejected.

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 11.06.2023, a prompt FIR dated 11.06.2023 was lodged by applicant/first informant-Ahibaran Kumar and was registered as Case Crime No. 288 of 2023, under Sections 302, 328 I.P.C. Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly. In the aforesaid FIR, two persons namely Murari Lal and Kamlapati Pradhan opposite parties 2 and 3 have been nominated as named accused.

5. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence as complained of is not established. In view of above, Investigating Officer opined to submit the final report. Resultantly, Investigating Officer submitted the final report/police report dated 11.10.2023 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned final report/police report dated 11.10.2023 first informant i.e. applicant herein filed a protest petition against the same. It is apposite to mention here that under the Code i.e. Cr.P.C. there is no provision for filing a protest petition against the police report. However, the said right is now available to the first informant by reason of the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police And Another, (1985) 2 SCC 537,

7. The chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly proceeded to examine the protest petition filed by applicant against the final report/police report dated 11.10.2023 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Upon appraisal and appreciation of the material accompanying the police report, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, came to the conclusion that as per the statement of the witness examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the death of deceased is a suicidal death. In view of above, no illegality/irregularity has been committed by Investigating Officer in exculpating the named accused. He, accordingly, rejected the protest petition filed by applicant and accepted the final report/police report dated 11.10.2023 vide order dated 20.01.2024.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly applicant filed criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. The same was registered as Criminal Revision No.42 of 2024 (Ahibaran Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others). The concerned Sessions Judge, examined the grounds raised and pressed in support of revision filed by applicant with reference to the record but did not find any illegality or perversity in the conclusion drawn by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He therefore, contends that that no ground exits to reject the final report/police report. Consequently, the Sessions Judge, Bareilly by a judgment and order of affirmance dated 29.08.2024 dismissed the revision filed by applicant.

9. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 20.11.2024 and 29.08.2024, applicant who is first informant has not approached this Court by means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

10. Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava the learned counsel for applicant in challenge to the order impugned has raised an interesting issue. He submits that as per the material collected by the Investigating Officer, he arrived at the conclusion that the death of deceased is suicidal and not homicidal. However, no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to examine the case of the first informant in the light of the provisions contained in Section 306 I.P.C. He, therefore submits that since both the Courts below, have failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter, i.e. at whole investigation, abetment or conspiracy the deceased committed suicide, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and matter be remitted to the Investigating Officer for further investigation in the light of above.

11. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that interest of justice could have been served in case, the protest petition filed by applicant was treated as complaint by the jurisdictional magistrate and thereafter proceeded with a complaint case. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that present application is liable to be allowed.

12. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing prospective accused/opposite parties 2 and 3 have vehemently opposed the present application. They submit that orders impugned in present application are perfectly just and legal, therefore, the same are not liable to be interfered with by this Court. According to Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing prospective accused opposite parties 2 and 3 submits that it is the basic prosecution case that the death of deceased is homicidal and not suicidal. On the above premise, they, therefore, contend that the submission urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application is contrary to the very basic prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR. Once, the prosecution could not be established, the very story which it set out to establish then simply on the basis of the fact that another view of the matter is possible, no order for further investigation or treating protest petition filed by the first informant as complaint is made out. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that the findings returned by Courts below in the order impugned in support of the conclusion that no ground is made out for not accepting the final report/police report are based upon valid and cogent findings. Since the findings returned both the Courts below could not be dislodged as being illegal, perverse or erroneous, no interference is warranted by this Court. It is further contended by the learned A.G.A. that it is by now well settled that if the findings cannot be dislodged then the conclusion can be altered. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing prospective accused opposite parties 2 and 3 that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

13. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not over come the same.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing prospective accused/opposite parties 2 and 3 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing prospective accused/opposite parties 2 and 3 in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record, but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

15. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

16. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Imtiyaz IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Ahibaran Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manvendra Nath Singh, Vipin Gangwar,G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing prospective accused opposite parties 2 and 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by first informant Ahibaran Kumar challenging the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 1420 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 288 of 2023, under Sections 302, 328 I.P.C. Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly as well as the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2024 (Ahibaran Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others), whereby aforementioned criminal revision arising out of order dated 20.01.2024 filed by applicant was rejected.

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 11.06.2023, a prompt FIR dated 11.06.2023 was lodged by applicant/first informant-Ahibaran Kumar and was registered as Case Crime No. 288 of 2023, under Sections 302, 328 I.P.C. Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly. In the aforesaid FIR, two persons namely Murari Lal and Kamlapati Pradhan opposite parties 2 and 3 have been nominated as named accused.

5. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence as complained of is not established. In view of above, Investigating Officer opined to submit the final report. Resultantly, Investigating Officer submitted the final report/police report dated 11.10.2023 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned final report/police report dated 11.10.2023 first informant i.e. applicant herein filed a protest petition against the same. It is apposite to mention here that under the Code i.e. Cr.P.C. there is no provision for filing a protest petition against the police report. However, the said right is now available to the first informant by reason of the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police And Another, (1985) 2 SCC 537,

7. The chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly proceeded to examine the protest petition filed by applicant against the final report/police report dated 11.10.2023 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Upon appraisal and appreciation of the material accompanying the police report, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, came to the conclusion that as per the statement of the witness examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the death of deceased is a suicidal death. In view of above, no illegality/irregularity has been committed by Investigating Officer in exculpating the named accused. He, accordingly, rejected the protest petition filed by applicant and accepted the final report/police report dated 11.10.2023 vide order dated 20.01.2024.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly applicant filed criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. The same was registered as Criminal Revision No.42 of 2024 (Ahibaran Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others). The concerned Sessions Judge, examined the grounds raised and pressed in support of revision filed by applicant with reference to the record but did not find any illegality or perversity in the conclusion drawn by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He therefore, contends that that no ground exits to reject the final report/police report. Consequently, the Sessions Judge, Bareilly by a judgment and order of affirmance dated 29.08.2024 dismissed the revision filed by applicant.

9. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 20.11.2024 and 29.08.2024, applicant who is first informant has not approached this Court by means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

10. Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava the learned counsel for applicant in challenge to the order impugned has raised an interesting issue. He submits that as per the material collected by the Investigating Officer, he arrived at the conclusion that the death of deceased is suicidal and not homicidal. However, no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to examine the case of the first informant in the light of the provisions contained in Section 306 I.P.C. He, therefore submits that since both the Courts below, have failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter, i.e. at whole investigation, abetment or conspiracy the deceased committed suicide, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and matter be remitted to the Investigating Officer for further investigation in the light of above.

11. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that interest of justice could have been served in case, the protest petition filed by applicant was treated as complaint by the jurisdictional magistrate and thereafter proceeded with a complaint case. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that present application is liable to be allowed.

12. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing prospective accused/opposite parties 2 and 3 have vehemently opposed the present application. They submit that orders impugned in present application are perfectly just and legal, therefore, the same are not liable to be interfered with by this Court. According to Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing prospective accused opposite parties 2 and 3 submits that it is the basic prosecution case that the death of deceased is homicidal and not suicidal. On the above premise, they, therefore, contend that the submission urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application is contrary to the very basic prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR. Once, the prosecution could not be established, the very story which it set out to establish then simply on the basis of the fact that another view of the matter is possible, no order for further investigation or treating protest petition filed by the first informant as complaint is made out. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that the findings returned by Courts below in the order impugned in support of the conclusion that no ground is made out for not accepting the final report/police report are based upon valid and cogent findings. Since the findings returned both the Courts below could not be dislodged as being illegal, perverse or erroneous, no interference is warranted by this Court. It is further contended by the learned A.G.A. that it is by now well settled that if the findings cannot be dislodged then the conclusion can be altered. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing prospective accused opposite parties 2 and 3 that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

13. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not over come the same.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing prospective accused/opposite parties 2 and 3 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing prospective accused/opposite parties 2 and 3 in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record, but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

15. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

16. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Imtiyaz IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad