ATUL PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2020 entered by the Judicial Magistrate II, Bhadohi at Gyanpur, declining to pass an order to register an FIR and directing that the application of the applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. be registered as a complaint case.

(2.) Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the learned Magistrate erred in law by refusing the prayer to register an FIR in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and instead treating the application as a complaint. He relies on the judgment rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and another in Application U/S 482 No. 43271 of 2018 on 30.11.2018. He then contends that the proposed accused is not entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the registration of FIR. The Magistrate arbitrarily declined to register the FIR even though a cognizable offence was disclosed in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

(3.) Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State resisting the said contentions calls attention to a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Jagannath Verma and others Vs State of U.P. and another , 2015 88 AllCriC 1 and submits that the impugned order is revisable and further the proposed accused is entitled to be noticed and given an opportunity of hearing.