ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.B. Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

(2.) This petition is filed against the order dated 07.2 2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Moradabad, whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner was treated as a complaint and the order dated 18.2.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2005 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner have not been passed in that the impugned orders accordance with the provisions of law. The impugned orders are illegal because on the basis of the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, and the allegations are of such nature which require investigation by the police. In such circumstances the learned C.J.M., Moradabad was under obligation to direct the S.O. of police station concerned to register the case and investigate the same, but the learned Magistrate did not pass such order and treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. as a complaint. The learned revisional court has also not considered the manifest error committed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioned.