PAPPU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. This application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. An application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant Pappu son of Shullur r/o Village Kanwar, P .S. Balua, District Chandauli against 16 accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli on 21.9.2005. The allegation in the application was that on 28.11.2005 Hira Lal, the brother of Pappu, was a candidate for the election of village Pradhan but he lost the election by 81 votes. Because of the aforesaid enmity of election, the accused persons, namely Rajendra, Ishwar Dayal, Shyamjeet Pandey @ Kallu, Onkar Pandey, Brijesh Singh, Pradeep Singh, Sita Ram Singh, Madhu Mangal Singh, Bharat Singh, Raghunath Singh, Parahoo, Panaroo, Sanjeev, Neeraj Singh, Umshanker, Sudhir, on 29.8.2005 at 8.00 a.m., armed with Lathi and illegal arms raided the house of the applicant and no sooner their arrival there, they started abusing and attacked the family member of the Pappu aforesaid. Accused Rajendra Ram and Sudhir Yadav fired with their country made pistols on the brother of the applicant Mahendra. As a result of shooting, Mahendra, Pappu and Dashrath received injuries. On hue and cry being raised many people of the village collected on the spot. Moti, Lallan and Shanker intervened in the incident. After the aforesaid assault, the accused persons trespassed into the house of the applicant Pappu and damaged the house hold goods. The accused also threatened the applicant Pappu with dire consequences. The applicant Pappu along with his brother went to the police station to get the FIR registered, but the same was not registered under the pressure of local M.L.A., as the accused persons were relatives of the said M.L.A. The applicant Pappu was wrongly challaned in Crime 65 of 2005, State of U.P. v. Heera Lal and Others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308, IPC and Crime No. 67 of 2005, under Sections 8/21, N.D.P.S. Act and also Case Crime No. 66 of 2005, under Sections 3/25, Arms Act. He had given an application to the S. P. Chandauli, D.I.G., Varanasi but, when nothing was done, then he filed an application, on 1.9.2005, under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli. The applicant also filed the medical examination report of the injured persons along with his said application. The Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli, vide his order dated 28.11.2005 had rejected the aforesaid application of the applicant holding that there was no need of investigation in the said incident. The learned Magistrate held that the role of each individual accused was not mentioned in application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. and there was some contradiction in the medical report vis-a-vis application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate relied upon a judgment of this Court did not care to mention it in his said order dated 28.11.2005.

(2.) Aggrieved by that order dated 28.11.2005 the applicant preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Chandauli which was registered a. Criminal Revision No. 153 of 2005, Pappu v. State of U.P. The lower Revisional Court also dismissed the revision on the ground that the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application of the revisionist.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. at great length.