SITARI BEGUM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) THE application being Misc. Application No. 54 of 2006 filed by the revisionist Sitari Begum, under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. disclosed commission of a cognizable offence of grievous nature under Section 325 I. P. C. as well as under Section 308 I. P. C. Since there was a fracture of the head bone found on the head of Kumar Gulista. Moreover, the accused persons have entered into the house of the revisionist and there they have assaulted her, which is also a cognizable offence. Judicial Magistrate-I, Saharanpur committed manifest error of law in not directing the police to follow the mandate of law to exercise their plenary power of investigation as was prayed by the revisionist through the said application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. It is not the law that if an application under Section 156 (3) is filed disclosing commission of cognizable offences the Magistrate should leave the police to act arbitrarily by not directing to register the F. I. R. THE Magistrate concerned was expected to follow the mandate of law and direct the police to register the F. I. R. In this case the Magistrate by not directing the police to register the F. I. R. of the cognizable offence committed manifest error of law and did not exercise his jurisdiction properly in law. THE victim never wanted to file a complaint and there may be thousands of reasons for the same including the fact that the accused are musclemen and the victim was not in position to bring the witnesses to the Court of law to support her version. THE Judicial Magistrate-Ist Saharanpur without looking into the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. , 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426, and in other similar judgments of the Apex Court has passed the impugned order on 16-10-2006 in the said Misc. Application No. 54 of 2006, under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. filed by the revisionist Sitari Begum, which cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. THE matter is remanded back to him decide the application afresh in accordance with law.