RAM BHAJAN 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 of the applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. (Miscellaneous Case No. 60 of 2006) filed before Special Judge D. A. A. , Budaun against accused persons, namely, Naresh, Tilak, Shyam Pal, Rahees, Ram Ratan discloses commission of a cognizable offence under Section 395 I. P. C. THE Special Judge D. A. A. Budaun committed the miscarriage of justice in not ordering for investigation and registration of the case, as the investigation was a must because the looted articles were to be recovered and moreover once the cognizable offence is disclosed, Special Judge (D. A. A.) had no authority to not to order for registration and investigation of the F. I. R. THE Special Judge (D. A. A.) concerned committed a manifest illegally in passing the impugned order dated 6-9-2006. THE investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. is the same investigation, which is to be carried out under Section 156 (1) Cr. P. C. THEre is no new investigation. Special Judge (D. A. A.) committed a manifest error of law in going into the merits of the matter as has been held in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. , 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 (1) SCC 335. THE Supreme Court has said that at the stage of directing an investigation, it is not require that the niceties of merits of the allegation be gone into.