JUDGMENT Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.
1. In an incident of Marpeet which occurred on 30.6.2006 within the area of Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, one person was killed during the course of incident and a first information report under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered by the police in consequence of death of that person.
2. The other party who is the petitioner here under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wanted to lodge another report in connection with the incident, containing their version of the occurrence.
3. The police declined to register the F.I.R. and an application to Senior Superintendent of Police did not yield any result.
4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking directions to police for registration of a first information report but the Magistrate did not oblige. A revision (No. 619 of 2006 decided on 23.6.2006) also failed to fructify and that is how the petitioner has to come to this Court.
5. I have heard Sri S.K. Verma counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Maurya Addl. Government for the State.
6. The Sessions Judge mentioned in his order that no injury report was produced before the Magistrate and there is no justification for registration of a second first information report.
7. The matter stands squarely clarified by the decision of the Supreme court in the Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Ors. reported in 2005 S.C.C. (Cri.) 211, wherein, it has been held that a second first information report containing the defence version of a cognizable offence needs to be registered by the police. Neither the Magistrate nor the Sessions Judge, Allahabad have referred to this decision.
8. Since the standards of Advocacy declined steeply, it cannot always be expected that lawyers will apprise the court of the relevant case law on a particular point.The judicial officers are expected to keep themselves abreast of important pronouncements particularly of the Supreme Court so that their decisions are in conformity with the law propounded by the Supreme Court. They should not depend upon the lawyers of apprising them on the subject.
9. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.8.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad is set aside. The first information report of the petitioner shall be duly registered.
10. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry to Judicial Magistrate (Court No. XI), through District Judge Allahabad for compliance.