BADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) IN this petition the order dated 15 -4 -2005 of the; learned Sessions Judge, Mathura is under challenge.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order passed by the revisional Court as well as the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, shows that both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner did not have any locus for moving the Court of Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. and as such, the petitioner's prayer before both the Courts below has been dismissed. In fact, the story as disclosed in the petition and given before the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. states that one Girdhar was murdered by his son and other family members, the knowledge of which was had by the petitioner after some time. This offence being a serious offence of cognizable nature, if has come to the notice of the petitioner, he is definitely bound under Section 39 Cr. P.C. to give the information of the same to the competent Magistrate or the Police officer. The extract of the aforesaid Section 39 (1) Cr. P.C. is as below: