JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Tufail Hasan learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
2. This petition is filed against the order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was treated as complaint and the police station concerned was not directed to register the case and investigate the same in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the order dated 27.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. 4, Firozabad, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders have not been passed in accordance with the provisions of law. The impugned orders are illegal because on the basis of the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, even then the learned C.J.M. has not directed the S.O. of police station concerned to register the case and investigate the same, but the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was illegally treated as a complaint. The learned revisional court has also not considered the manifest error committed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on 27.11.2004.
4. This contention has been opposed by learned A.G.A. by stating that the impugned order passed by the learned courts below are perfect orders, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.
5. From the persual of the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein a prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the accused and the allegations are of such nature which require investigation by the police. In such circumstances the learned Magistrate was under obligation to direct the S.O. of police station concerned to register the case and investigate the same. If on the basis of the allegation made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima facie cognizable offence is made out such application cannot be treated as a complaint because in such cases the learned Magistrate is under obligation to direct the S.O. of police station concerned to register the case and investigate the same. Therefore the impugned order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the learned C.J.M. Firozabad is illegal. The learned revisional court has not considered the manifest error committed by the learned Magistrate in passing the order dated 28.8.2004 and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on 27.11.2004. Therefore, the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Fast Track Court no. 4, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2004 is also illegal. Consequently, both the abovementioned orders dated 28.8.2004 passed by the learned C.J.M. and 27.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Firozabad respectively are set aside.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned C.J.M. Firozabad is directed to pass a fresh order on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law.
7. With this observation the petition is finally disposed.