VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) An application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist / applicant registered as Misc. Case No.136 of 2018, Vinod Kumar Vs. Aidal Singh, P.S. Gabhana, Aligarh was rejected by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Aligarh vide order dtd. 26/5/2018, feeling aggrieved of which, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) The submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, in brief, are that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts of the case and evidence on record. It is against the provisions of law and suffers from the jurisdictional error as the jurisdiction vested in the Court has not been exercised properly. The observations made by the learned Sessions Court are perverse and arbitrary in nature. From a bare perusal of the application moved by the revisionist under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C., a cognizable offence was clearly made out and the Court ought to have ordered for the registration of F.I.R. and investigation into the matter, but the same was rejected in an illegal manner. Hence, a prayer has been made to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the present revision.