RAKESH PURI AND BHASKAR PURI BOTH SONS OF LATE BHAGWAN PURI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND SHUBHANKAR CHAKRAVARTI SON OF MANMOHAN CHAKRAVARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two uterine brothers Rakesh Pun and Bhaskar Puri have preferred this revision aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2006 passed by ACJM, Varanasi Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. on the application of Shubhankar Chakravarti, O.P. No. 2 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had directed for registration and investigation of the case against the revisionist on the said application.

(2.) The allegations in short against the revisionist in the application Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., filed on 10.8.1996 by O.P. No. 2 were that Shubhankar Chakravarti is the "Mahant" of Batuk Bhairon Mandir Varanasi and used to do the prayer etc of the deity. On 6.8.2006 at 12.20 in the night Himanshu Singh and Gaurav Gupta were performing the prayer in the said temple when the two revisionists accompanied with seven other anti social elements came there uttering filthy abuses and started threatening the applicant(respondent No. 2) to vacate the temple premises immediately. On resistance being shown, Rakesh Puri assaulted Gaurav Gupta with Bhujali at the instigation of Bhaskar Puri. After the said assault on Gaurav Gupta, Himanshu Singh and the informant were also assaulted by the revisionists and his associates as a result of which they sustained injuries. During this marpit Bhashkar Puri also fired at Shubhankar Chakravarti O.P. No. 2 from his country made pistol but the shot evaded him. Many people of vicinity collected and intervened in the incident on which the revisionists and his associates left the place of the incident. The written Tahrir by Shubhankar Chakravarti respondent opposite party No. 2 was refused to be registered as FIR by the Incharge of Police Station Bhelupur, district Varanasi on the pretext of no medical examination report. The applicant, Himanshu Singh and Gaurav Gupta got themselves medically examined at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Government Hospital. Inspite of their medical reports the FIR was not registered and consequently O.P. No. 2 informed SSP Varanasi in writing. However nothing was done in the matter, consequently he wielded the power of the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. by filing an application on 10.8.2006. Alongwith the application he had appended the application which he had sent to the SSP, Varanasi with three medical reports. Medical report of Himanshu Singh, indicate that he had sustained four visible injuries of various sizes on various parts of his body including three complains of pain. Gaurav Gupta had sustained a lacerated wound with three abrasions and swellings. Respondent No. 2 Shubhankar Chakravarti had sustained three contused swelling and abrasions. All the injuries of three injured persons, in the opinion of the doctor, were caused by hard and blunt object. Finding cognizable offence being disclosed, prima-facie, ACJM, Court No. 2, Varanasi ordered for registration and investigation of the case vide impugned order dated 19.8.2006. One more fact, which requires to be mentioned at this stage, is that during the course of hearing on the application Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. filed by OP. No. 2 the accused revisionists had also appeared in the court and had prayed for staying of the proceedings, which was rejected by the ACJM, Court No. 2 Varanasi holding that they had no locus standi to oppose the said application and their application for stay was not maintainable. Since the accused failed to get the proceedings installed, they have filed the present revision in this Court with the prayer of quashing the order dated 19.8.2006, by which their application for installation of the proceedings has been rejected and the order for registration and investigation of the case has been passed by ACJM, Court No. 2 Varanasi.

(3.) I have heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionists in support of this application and the learned AGA in opposition.