JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Lav Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
2. This petition is filed against the order dated 21.2.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi In Criminal Misc. Case No. 154 of 2005, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. was moved by the petitioner, which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi on 8.10.2003 and the S.H.O. of the police station, Gyanpur was directed to register the case and investigate the same in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. Against that order the respondent no. 2 file Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2003. The same was allowed on 19.2.2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Gyanpur, Bhadohi and the order dated 8.10.2003 passed by the learned Magistrate was quashed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint dated 21.2.2005 in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Gyanpur Bhadohi which was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 21.2.2005. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 21.2.2005 is illegal, because the learned Magistrate was under obligation to entertain the complaint and proceed further with the case as a complaint case, but in the present case the learned Magistrate without recording statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
4. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order because the impugned order is well reasoned.
5. From the perusal of the order dated 21.2.2005 it appears that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the opportunity of challenging the order dated 19.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Gyanpur Bhadohi, so the complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. It is not a correct approach because the petitioner is entitled to file a regular complaint and the Judicial Magistrate was under obligation to entertain the same and to proceed with the case as a complaint case in accordance with the provisions of law, so the order dated 21.2.2005 passed by the learned Magistrate, Gyanpur, Bhadohi is illegal and is hereby set aside.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur Bhadohi is directed to proceed further on the complaint filed by the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of law.
7. With this observation the petition is finally disposed of.