Accordingly, the High Court inter alia gave the following directions In above view of the matter the petitioner is directed to approach the learned Magistrate companycerned within 10 days and file protest petition and the learned Magistrate companycerned taking into account the statement of the injured and the injury report press a proper and appropriate order in accordance with law within a week thereafter and till then the final report No.32 of 2006 shall number be given effect to and in case the final report has already been accepted the same shall be treated to have been rejected.
The final report was on the basis of alibi claimed by the accused persons.
This Court is anxious to know the order passed by the learned Magistrate, list this writ petition before us on 20th April, 2007 for the report of the learned Magistrate companycerned.
Subsequently, the investigation was undertaken by one Chet Singh, SI who submitted the final report excluding the afore named accused i.e. the present appellants in the offence.
The writ petitioner alleged that his son had sustained fire arm injuries at the hands of some unknown miscreants on 30.3.2006 at 10.00 a.m. and in regard to it a case was registered.
In the writ petition, the writ petitioner, i.e. respondent No.1, had prayed for a direction to the investigating agency to proceed with fair and proper investigation in case No.147 of 2006 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC registered at Police Station Nauchandi, district Meerut.
In the said order, the learned Magistrate categorically referred to the order passed by the High Court.
Before the said order companyld be passed, the trial companyrt in fact had rejected the final report by order dated 16th April, 2007.
The High Court further companyld number have kept the matter pending and indicated its anxiety to know the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
2364 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Initially, Sri R.P. Singh, Station Officer, Nauchandi had recorded the statement of the informant and the injured Dhananjay who had categorically stated that the present appellants had caused fire arm injuries on him.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No.13182 of 2006 which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution .
The High Court was of the view that whether any alibi can be accepted is for the trial companyrt to decide.
This Court directed interim stay of the High Courts order by order dated 20th April, 2007.
The High Court was of the view that from the beginning the writ petitioner was apprehending that there would be numberfair and proper investigation into the case as the accused persons are influential persons.
