RAM RAJ PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance is that the learned Magistrate did not send the3 petition with a direction to police to register a case under Sec. 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code and passed a final order holding that no such occurrence took place. According to the applicant the said order is illegal and band in law. The complainant is empowered to file complaint under Sec. 200 Criminal Procedure Code. There is no provision to file complaint to a court under Sec. 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code., Under Sec. 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate may send the complaint to the police for investigation or he may take congnizance under Sec. 200 Criminal Procedure Code by examining the complainant and his witnesses. In the instant case he has not exercised his power under Sec. 156 (3) Criminal Procedure code to register a case. Before passing the final order he should have given opportunity to the complainant to produce the list of witnesses and examine them under Sec. 200 Criminal Procedure Code without taking that course the Magistrate should not have passed the final order only by perusing the police report. The complainant was deprived of proving his case. The order is required to be set aside.

(2.) The revision is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 24.8.1995 passed in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No. 35 of 1995 is hereby set aside. He shall extend opportunity to the complainant to produce his witnesses in connection with this case and examine the complainant and the witnesses and then proceed according to law. Before taking any action, in the light of the observations made above, the A.C.J.M. Varanasi shall transfer the case to any other Judicial Magistrate posted at that station for disposal. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of.