Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2140 of 2007 Revisionist :- Mozzam Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,N. Shukla
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 16.07.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar in Misc. Case No. 247 of 2007 by which the learned Magistrate has passed the order on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, directing the police to register the F.I.R and investigate.
It appears that an application was given before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by opposite party no. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. From the perusal of the impugned order itself, it appears that in respect of witnesses affidavit was filed and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order in view of the order of this Court which was earlier passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1541 of 2007 on 31.05.2007 observing that prima-facie, the offence of attempt of murder was made out. Considering that observation the impugned order has been passed.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, this revision has been filed on the ground that learned court below proceeded to record a categorical finding that the application of the opposite party no. 2 is barred under Section 162 Cr.P.C but in a most arbitrary and illegal manner proceeded to issue direction to the police station concerned to register a case which is wholly illegal and not justified.
From the perusal of impugned order, it appears that after going into allegations made in the application, the learned Magistrate found that cognizable offence was made out and, therefore, directed for registration of F.I.R and investigation by the police.
The law on this point is settled by the judgement in the case of Jagannath Verma Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (3) JIC 930 Alld. Full Bench and in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287 that a revision against the order allowing an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
In view of above discussion, I do not find any material irregularity or illegality or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, hence revision is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 PS