MOHAMMAD ASRAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the docu­ments available on record. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned judg­ment and order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Criminal Revision No. 182/2009 (Mohd. Asrar v. State) by which the learned Ses­sions Judge has dismissed the revision pre­ferred by the petitioner against the order dated 3.3.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrte, Bahraich in Case No. 4984/12/2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner moved under section 156 (3) of the Code for direction the S.O. of the concerned P.S. to register and investigate the case.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition may be summarized as under: The petitioner who is complainant has moved an application under section 156 (3) of the Code before the Chief Judicial Magis­trate, Bahraich for directing the S.O. of con­cerned P.S. to register and investigate the case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide impugned detailed and reasoned order dated 3.3.2009 has rejected the application moved by the complainant. The complain­ant being aggrieved by the impugned order preferred revision before the learned Ses­sions Judge, Bahraich who too vide im­pugned detailed and reasoned order dated 13.7.2009 dismissed the revision on the ground that it has got no force. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made by the complainant in his application moved under section 156 (3) of the Code disclose commission of cognizable offence, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magis­trate was expected to allow the application of the complainant and direct the S.O. of P.S. concerned to register and investigate the case. The learned Magistrate has re­jected the application mainly on the ground that as per his opinion the occurrence ap­peared to be false. This could not be ground for rejection of his application. The uiipugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is bdced on his personal imagi­nation which is illegal and liable to be quashed.