RAM PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. N. Sinha, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA I have perused the impugned order.

(2.) THE applicant moved an application before the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. on the ground that he is a mansion by profession and use to live in the house situated at village Galan alongwith his grandmother. His grand mother died 16-17 years back. On 30-10-2004 he locked his house and went to Hapur in connection with his job and on his return on 4-11-2004 he found that Lahari, Pappu Kamal Singh and Smt. Asha had occupied the said house and removed the household goods. THE factum regarding removal of houses hold goods was told to him by village people hence prayed for registration of the case at the police station. THE said prayer was rejected by order dated 25-11-2005 and the application was directed to be treated as complaint and the Court fixed a date for recording of statement under Section 200 Cr. P. C. Being aggrieved by the said order the present application has been filed.

(3.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is that recovery could be made that is why investigation is necessary. THE occurrence is said to have taken place on 2-11-2004 and the application under Section 156 Cr. P. C. was moved on 17th October 2005 i. e. after about a year. Hence the question of recovery losses its importance. THE order of Magistrate for directing the application to be registered as complaint does not suffer from any illegality in view of 2001 (Suppl) ACC 957, Joseph Madhuri and Anr. v. Sachchinand Hari Sakshi and Anr. , wherein the Apex Court has held that such order can be passed.