JUDGMENT K.N. Sinha, J.
1. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, which is Annexure No. 3, on the ground that Smt. Sayana, daughter of the petitioner and Mobin were beaten. The petitioner filed affidavit, medical examination report, X-ray report and receipt of sending the complaint to the police officer with the above prayer. The said application was dismissed, taking the help of the judgment of this Court in the case of Gulab Chandra Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. (2002 (44) ACC-670). The revision against the said order was also dismissed. The revisional court also resorted to the above judgment. The approach on the fact and law is quite erroneous. There are medical report in respect of Smt. Sayana, wife of Mustakim and Mobin. There are also a fracture of 9th rib in the X-ray of Smt. Sayana. The allegations set forth coupled with the injury report and X-ray report, make out a cognizable offence. Whenever the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate is bound to direct for registration of the case and investigation. The law laid down in Gulab Chandra case (supra) has been wrongly interpreted. It gives a guideline to the Magistrate. Suppose, in a murder case, where all the accused are known and murder takes place in broad day light and on inaction of police, if the complainant approaches the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whether his prayer can be thrown away, taking resort to Gulab Chandra case (supra) that offence was committed in broad day light and accused are known, hence case could not be registered. The answer is No. This type of approach to law is not proper.
2. This is absolutely misinterpretation of the judgment of this Court by the revisional court and the law laid down did not permit the court to interpret in such a way. Any guide line given by this Court has to be followed in the circumstances and facts of each case. There may be false type of complaint. There may be some complaint of civil nature or otherwise or some complaint in which the cognizable offence is patently not made out. The courts should examine the genuineness of each complaint and in his wisdom, should pass a proper order. The case of Gulab Chandra (Supra) lays down only the guidelines. There cannot be any straight jacket formula. Moreover, no judgment of superior court says that the court of Magistrate or the revisional court should close their eyes to the facts of the case. The facts of each case differ. The order of the revisional court, as passed in the revision, is absolutely illegal and not tenable in the eyes of law.
3. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.4.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja (Bulandshahar) in case no, 70/2005 and order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 222/2005 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar with the direction to reconsider the whole matter examining the factual aspects of the case, considering the medical examination report, X-ray report and other relevant papers, and pass the order afresh.