JUDGMENT K.N. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 4 to 7 and learned A.G.A.
2. From the record, it transpires that petitioner Ram Kumar Gautam moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Mawana, District Meerut, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed and it was directed by the Magistrate that S.O. Mawana, District Meerut, shall register a case and investigate. Against the said order, a revision was filed by the opposite party No. 4 to 7 and after hearing the parties the said revision was allowed, setting aside the order of the Magistrate. It was observed that if petitioner so likes, he may file a complaint.
3. The allegation in the application is that opposite parties Pankaj, Manoj, Harish and Om Prakash came along with danda, gun and iron rod, entered into the shop of the petitioner and badly assaulted petitioner and his brother. In support of this, the injury report was also filed showing a contusion and from X-ray, a fracture was also found. In this way, the offence goes minimum to the extent of Section 325 Indian Penal Code, besides other sections of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The revisional court heard the parties' counsel but the said fact was ignored on the ground that there has been previous litigation between the parties. The revisional court had traced the history of the litigations between the parties and came to the conclusion that Ram Kumar Gautam was not injured and injury was received at the thumb of Mahesh Gautam. He has also resorted to a judgment of this Court in Gulab Chandra Upadhvava v. State of U.P. 2002 1441 ACC-670. The approach on the fact is quite erroneous. If there is previous enmity between the parties that does not mean that any offence, committed thereafter, should go un-noticed. There is fracture in the hand of one injured and it makes out a cognizable offence. Whenever said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate is bound to direct for registration of the case. The law laid down in Gulab Chandra case (supra) has been wrongly interpreted. It gives a guide line 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.
5. 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 of the 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 made out. The courts should examine the genuineness of each complaint and in his wisdom, should pass a proper order. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Meerut, as passed in the revision, is absolutely illegal and not tenable in the eyes of law.
6. Consequently the writ petition is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 270/2005 is quashed. Whereas the order dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Mawana district Meerut stands restored.