BRIJESH KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned Counsel for the complainant and learned AGA.

(2.) IN this criminal revision an order dated 17-12-1998 passed by JM 1, Gorakhpur, in F. R No. 91/98, Smt. Malti Devi v. Shaileshmani, under Sections 467, 468, 420, 364, 302 and 506 IPC, PS Jhanga, District Gorakhpur, has been challenged.

(3.) IT has been specifically held in Gangadhar Janardan Khatre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , 2005 (1) JIC 202 (SC) : 2004 (50) ACC 650, in paragraph 9, that even in cases where in the opinion of the police no offence appears to have been committed, three courses are open to the Magistrate, i. e. (1) he may accept the report and dropt the proceedings, or, (2), he may disagree with the report and take the view that there is sufficient ground for further proceedings and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or, (3), he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C.