LALJI DHOBI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The complainant moved an application with the aforesaid averments under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned C.J.M. on 22.4.2011 for directing the police officers to register a First Information Report against the accused persons.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the order passed by the learned magistrate dismissing the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is bad in the eyes of law as the learned magistrate instead of examining the matter on the basis of complaint and the statement of the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C., was required only to see as to whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed against the accused or not. He further submits that from the material on record; it was apparent that a prima facie cognizable offence was disclosed against the accused and the learned magistrate within his jurisdiction could have summoned the accused persons for trial and not doing so, he appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused persons though he was required to see whether a cognizable offence is being disclosed against the accused for summoning them or not. Hence the impugned order dated 9.11.2011 deserves to be quashed by this Court.