RAM KARAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 20.1.2012? passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar whereby the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156(3),Cr.P.C. has been treated as complaint case.

(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. has submitted that the order impugned, in the present revision, has been passed after considering entire facts and evidence on record which suffers from no illegality or infirmity in law and calls no interference by this Court. He has further submitted that cognizable offence is made out. LEARNED A.G.A. has relied upon a Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that caution should be exercised by the High Court in the matter which relates to non-registration of first information report or improper investigation. It was held that High Court should discourage writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., where alternative remedies under Section 154(3) read with Section 36 or Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C. have not been exhausted. LEARNED A.G.A. has also referred a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2007 (59) ACC 739 wherein this Court has held that the Magistrate is not bound to order registration of a first information report in all cases where a cognizable offence has been disclosed and the Magistrate has authority to treat it as complaint.