Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85435 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5572 of 2024 Revisionist :- Amit Jain @ Amit Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhitab Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. This Court vide order dated 25.4.2025 had issued notice to Opposite Party No.4. In spite of service of notice on Opposite Party No.4, no one has appeared on his behalf. 3. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 2.9.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut in Case No. 867 of 2021 (Amit Vs. Kapil) related to Case Crime No. 35 of 2017 registered under Sections 386 and 506 I.P.C. in Police Station Ganganagar, District Meerut, whereby the protest petition filed by the revisionist had been rejected as the revisionist did not advance arguments on his protest petition and further final report filed by the Investigating Officer, had been accepted. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the arguments on behalf of the revisionist could not be advanced for unavoidable reasons and in that regard the application seeking exemption from appearance was filed but the same had been rejected and the protest petition filed by the revisionist, had been rejected on the ground that the arguments in support of the protest petition have not been advanced. 5. It has further been contended that from bare perusal of the impugned order dated 2.9.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut, it is apparent that the final report filed by the Investigating Officer had been accepted without making any consideration on it. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that on the date of passing of the impugned order dated i.e. on 2.9.2024, an application seeking exemption from appearance from the side of the revisionist was filed but the same had been rejected. It has further been argued that even if it is assumed that the revisionist was avoiding for arguments on his protest petition, it was obligatory on the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut to consider the final report on its own merit and only then the final report in the matter, could have been accepted. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has also argued that from bare perusal of the impugned order dated 2.9.2024, it is apparent that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut had accepted the final report without considering the same on merits and without applying his mind. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State though has tried to oppose this criminal revision but could not give any justification as to how, the final report can be accepted by the court without making any consideration on merits of the case. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and have perused the documents annexed along with this criminal revision. 10. I find that the protest petition filed by the revisionist had been rejected for the reason that the arguments on behalf of the revisionist in respect of the protest petition have not been advanced. I further find that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut had accepted the final report filed by the Investigating Officer in Case Crime No. 35 of 2017 without making any consideration, as to whether the filing of the final report in the matter is correct or not. 11. This Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 2.9.2024, on its face, is unsustainable as the final report had been accepted by the court, without making any consideration, as to whether the final report in the matter could have been filed or not. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.9.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut in Case No. 867 of 2021 (Amit Vs. Kapil) is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut to consider and decide the protest petition filed by the revisionist in the matter, afresh and thereafter to take decision, as to whether the final report filed by the Investigating Officer is liable to be accepted or rejected. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Gaurav Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad