HIRA LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question for consideration is whether investigation of a case, which has been registered on the basis of the order passed on the application under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure (Cr. P. C. for short) is vitiated on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to pass order for investigation.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was moved in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, ghaziabad on 22-07-1999 by Sri Veer Singh chauhan (opposite party No. 2 herein)impleading Rohtash and revisionist Hira Lal as opposite parties. It was prayed in the application that S. O. , P. S. Sector 20, Noida be directed to register a case against the accused-opposite parties and investigate the same. On that application, Chief Judicial magistrate, Ghaziabad passed order on the same day and directed S. O. , P. S. Sector 20, Noida to register the case and investigate. In pursuance of that order, F. I. R. was lodged at P. S. Sector 20, Noida on 27-7-1999 and a case under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I. P. C. was registered at crime No. 549 of 1999 against rohtash and Hira Lal. Aforesaid order was challenged by the revisionist in the Court of sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in criminal revision No. 353 of 1999, which was decided by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, ghaziabad vide order dated 12-1-2000 (Annexure 6), whereby the revision was allowed and order dated 22-7-1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, was set aside. The order was challenged in that revision on the ground that Chief Judicial magistrate, Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to entertain and pass order on the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , as the offences are alleged to have been committed in Noida in District Gautambudh nagar, which started functioning w. e. f 27-6-1999. The FIR lodged pursuant to the order dated 22-7-1999 was also challenged by Sri Hira Lal (revisionist herein) in this court in criminal misc. application No. 4846 of 1999. While issuing notice to opposite party No. 2 on 6-10-1999, this Court had stayed the arrest of the applicant Hira Lal in case crime No. 549 of 1999 till submission of the chargesheet. After investigation, chargesheet (Annexure 5) has been submitted against Rohtash, Indrajit and ghanshyam mentioning therein that from the whole investigation, offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I. P. C. are made out against the accused of Column No. 3 and Hira Lal S/o nathu Singh, but since the arrest of Hira lal has not been made, hence, action against him will be taken separately. On the basis of the chargesheet, cognizance has been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, gautambudh Nagar vide order dated 27-9-1999 passed in Crl. Case No. 2808 of 1999 and the accused named in the chargesheet viz. Rohtash, Indrajit and Ghanshyam have been summoned to face the trial. When the accused did not appear in Court below, non-bailable warrants have been issued against them vide order dated 27-9-1999 of taking cognizance and 24/28-10-2003 issuing non-bailable warrants have been challenged in this revision.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. for the State. In spite of sufficient service of notice, neither opposite party No. 2, Veer Singh Chauhan nor his counsel appeared to argue.