RAM AGYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 27/9/2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge. Deoria in Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2001 allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 11/7/2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Deoria in Misc. Application No. 793 of 2001 rejecting the application Rajesh Dollar opposite party No. 2 under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. as well as the order dated 4/10/2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria allowing the application of opposite party No. 2 in pursuance of revisional order.

(2.) It appears that the opposite party No. 2 Rajesh Dollar moved an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate. Deoria under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. for directing the local police to register a case against the applicants under Sections 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and investigation and report with the allegations that he had enmity with applicant Ram Agya. On 28/5/2001 marriage party of son of Ram Agya had to proceed and opposite party No. 2 was serving food at his house. Ram Agya was taking food and he started abusing him. However, the persons present there pacified him. Thereafter at about 2 P.M. the applicants formed an unlawful assembly raided house of opposite party No. 2, started abusing him and by entering into his house caused injuries with lathi, danda, hands and fists to him. When Suresh came to save him the applicants also caused injuries to him. The occurrence was witnessed by Gulab Chand, Ram Kishan, Ram Newaj and others. The opposite Party No. 2 got himself medically examined at Gauri Bazar and went to lodge a report at the police station, but the Head Constable did not lodge his report under the pressure of applicants. Thereafter, he sent an application to Superintendent of Police, but still his report was not written. Therefore, he moved the application before the Court of ChiefJudicial Magistrate.

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on considering the above report rejected the same on 11/ 7/2001 on the ground that no prima facie cognizable offence has been disclosed.