SMT. ANITA DEVIversusState of U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14673 of 2024

Smt. Anita Devi
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, G.A., Gunja
                                  Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)       :

Court No. - 89
                     HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh Kumar Singh,
learned AGA for the State are present.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside
the impugned judgment and order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge Agra in Criminal Revision No. 546 of 2023, (Smt. Anita
Devi versus State of U.P. and others) also the impugned order dated
06.06.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra in Criminal
Case No 685/2021 (Anita Versus Sanjay).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an FIR under Sections
147, 323, 354, 356, 452, 504, 506 IPC was lodged against the respondents.
The said FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 0457 of 2021 at Police
Station Hariparvat, District Agra on 11.11.2021. After investigation, final
report was submitted against which the petitioner filed a protest petition.
However, the protest petition was rejected and the final report was accepted.
Learned counsel submitted that the contents of the complaint and other
relevant evidences were specifically mentioned in the protest petition, but
the same were not properly considered by the learned trial court while
rejecting the protest petition vide order dated 06.06.2023. Aggrieved by the
order dated 06.06.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 685 of 2021 (Anita vs.
Sanjay), the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 546 of 2023 (Smt.
Anita Devi vs. State of U.P. and others), which too was dismissed on
01.03.2024.

4. It was further submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have
converted the protest petition into a complaint case. However, instead of
treating the protest petition as a complaint, the learned Magistrate dismissed
                                                          A227 No. 14673 of 2024
                                 2

the same. Learned counsel contended that the grounds raised in the protest
petition were not properly appreciated by the courts below.

5. Learned AGA submitted that a detailed and reasoned order was passed by
the learned Magistrate on 06.06.2023. The learned Magistrate discussed the
statements of independent witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer
during investigation as well as the CCTV footage relating to the alleged
incident. All the independent witnesses denied the occurrence of the alleged
incident. Even the son of the petitioner admitted that an earlier altercation
had taken place between him and the respondents, regarding which an FIR
had already been lodged and pursuant thereto he had been sent to jail. It was
also stated that the incident alleged in the present FIR was shown to have
occurred after he had already been sent to jail in the earlier case. The learned
Magistrate further noted the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer
that the FIR appeared to have been lodged as a counterblast to the earlier
FIR lodged against the petitioner's son.

6. Learned AGA further submitted that the evidences collected during
investigation did not substantiate the allegations levelled in the FIR and,
therefore, acceptance of the final report by the learned trial court does not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated
06.06.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Agra. The learned Magistrate has
discussed the statements of the independent witnesses as well as the
statement of the petitioner's son recorded during investigation. All the
independent witnesses denied the allegations. The son of the petitioner
admitted that he had been sent to jail pursuant to an FIR lodged against him
by the respondents. The learned trial court thereafter agreed with the
conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer that the present FIR was
lodged as a counterblast. The CCTV footage and other materials collected
during investigation were also considered by the learned Magistrate while
accepting the final report.

8. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity in the findings recorded
by the learned trial court on the basis of the evidences collected during
investigation. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the protest petition ought to have been converted into a
complaint case is concerned, the same is devoid of merit. A Magistrate is not
bound to convert each and every protest petition into a complaint case. It is
incumbent upon the Magistrate to assess the evidences collected during
investigation before arriving at any conclusion. The Magistrate has the
discretion to adopt any of the legally permissible courses available after
                                                                                             A227 No. 14673 of 2024
                                                                    3

                                    submission of the final report. Once such discretion has been exercised and
                                    the same does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, no interference is
                                    warranted.

                                    9. Accordingly, the orders dated 01.03.2024 and 06.06.2023 are hereby
                                    upheld. The present petition is dismissed.

                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Ujjawal
                                                                                             (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad