HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14673 of 2024 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, G.A., Gunja Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Smt. Anita Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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 A227 No. 14673 of 2024 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad