SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the state. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 28.6.2010 passed by ACJM-III, Jaunpur in criminal misc. case No. 275 of 2010, Ranjeet Yadav v. Shyam Lal and others, whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party No. 2 Ranjeet Yadav, the complainant, was allowed and the concerned Station Officer was directed to register the FIR and investigate the matter.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist submitted that though both the parties resided at Goa, but they are originally residents of District Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh. The allegations of harassment and maltreatment of the wife of revisionist No.6 relate to incident, which took place at Goa and the Magistrate at Jaunpur had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the Magistrate has not carefully considered the contents of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. otherwise the factum of lack of jurisdiction would have come to his knowledge.

(3.) IT will not be out of place to mention that the revisionists are accused in the case. Prospective accused have no right to challenge an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the registration of FIR and investigation. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of prima facie offence and the Magistrate has rightly ordered registration of FIR and investigation.