SONY SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri R. K. Chaurasia, learned Counsel for the respondent and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) AN application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence under Section 325 I. P. C. The Special Judge (D. A. A.), Farrukhabad rejected the said application and direct it to be registered as a complaint case. The Special Judge (D. A. A.), Farrukhabad under Section 156 (3) is empowered to check the arbitrary act of police and that section cannot travel beyond the scope of Section 156 (1) Cr. P. C. The application disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, therefore, by rejecting the prayer of registration of F. I. R. and investigation of offence the Special Judge, committed an illegality. The Special Judge is required to get the mandate of law observed by the police as has been held by the Apex Court in case of Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and not to get it flouted by the police.