AJAI PAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE is called out. None is present on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, even in the revised list. No counter affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the State or the private respondents. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on the record.

(2.) THE applicants by way of filing this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have sought to quash the impugned order passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sultanpur dated 10.2.2004 in Criminal Revision No.322 of 2002 (Bhajan Harijan Versus State of U.P.) whereby order dated 29.10.2002 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.20, Sultanpur was quashed and direction was issued to the police concerned to register and investigate the case against the applicants and submit the report to the concerned Magistrate within a month.

(3.) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that revisional court had no jurisdiction to disturb the finding recorded by the court below. The revisional court had exceeded its jurisdiction in examining the case on merits. It could have only seen the correctness, legality or propriety of the order under challenge? but in the present case the Additional Sessions Judge? had examined the case on merit and upset the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate. It was further argued that since N.C.R. No. 53 of 2002 of opposite party no.3 was already registered against the applicants for the same cause of action, therefore, learned Magistrate had rightly declined to exercise the power conferred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and rejected the application and permitted the police concerned to investigate the case related to the N.C.R.