SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. for direction to the police to register a case for offences 394,504 and 506 against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 and to investigate the matter under the aforesaid section. The aforesaid applica ­tion was rejected by the impugned order, dated 6 -4 -1999 passed by the Special Judge, (D.A.A.), Etah. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that learned Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah has erred in accepting the report of the police.