Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1297 of 2018 Revisionist :- Susheela Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 24.2.2018, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, whereby the Magistrate directed that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist shall be treated as complaint case, meaning thereby that the Magistrate has refused to issue a direction to the concerned Police Station to register an F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that since application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of cognizable offence, therefore, the Magistrate was duty bound to issue the direction to the concerned Station House Officer to register the F.I.R. and thereafter, proceed with the statutory investigation as contemplated under Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. The submission so made is wholly misconceived. The trial court has recorded a specific finding that all the facts which are required to be proved in support of the charge alleged against the opposite party in the application, are in the knowledge of the applicant and therefore, police investigation is not necessary. The said finding recorded by the trial court has not been challenged by taking specific ground in the memo of revision.
In the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid finding, no case for interference is made out. The criminal revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Arshad