RAJA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. C. Deepak, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the application dated 28-11-2003 (Annexure 1) discloses the commission of cognizable offence. It was obligatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to have directed for the registration of the case and its investigation but the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 28-11-2003 and the revisional Court vide his order dated 25-2-2004 refused to register the case. His contention is that the applicant can be given such relief under Section 482 petition and in support of his contention he has relied upon the cases of Krishnan v. Krishna reported in 1997 JIC 406 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 987 and Laxmi Bhai Patel v. Shyam Kumar Patel, 2002 (2) JIC 42 (SC ).