RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of Smt. Anisa and others v. State of U. P. and another, 2000 (2) ACrR 1327 : 2000 (41) ACC 214. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr passed in the revision is without jurisdiction. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble single Judge of this Court has taken a view that it is only the Magistrate empowered under Section 190, Cr. P.C., who may order for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. In that case, as the order allowing application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. and directing the police to register the case on the basis of the application and to investigate the same was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, directly, the same was held to be without jurisdiction. In the instant, case, the facts are, however, different.

(3.) AS far as prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is concerned, no case is made out, as the allegations made therein do disclose commission of cognizable offences. Whether or not the petitioners are in any way involved or connected with the commission of any cognizable offence, is a question which has to be looked into by the Investigating Agency. We hope and trust that the Investigating Officer shall investigate the case fairly and shall take any coercive steps against the petitioners after verifying the genuineness and bona fides of the allegations made in the F.I.R., particularly when the F.I.R. has been lodged after a long gap of about six years.