RAM Vs. STATE OF U P & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2 Hardoi in Criminal Misc. Case No.813/2014, the revisionist has preferred this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that on 20.08.2014 at about 6.00 PM, the opposite parties had taken away his son Puspendra alias Golu with them but after that he disappeared. He went in search of his son at the house of opposite parties No.2 to 4 but could not find them. On the next day, the dead body of his son was found at a lonely place. There were several injuries on his body. The revisionist immediately went to the police station Mallawan, but his report was not lodged. The police only prepared inquest report and sent the body for postmortem. Having no other option, the revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., upon which the learned Magistrate called for a report from the concerned police station and by the impugned order directed the application of the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to be treated as complaint case.