SURESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) A. C. J. M. Court No. 1, Aligarh on the application filed by the respondent No. 2 himself has observed that offences under Sections 429, 457, I. P. C. are made out. Both the offences are cognizable offences. In this view of the matter there was no justification for the A. C. J. M. Court No. 1, Aligarh to refuse the prayer for registration of the F. I. R. Filing of a complaint is a different issue. Once the cognizable offence is disclosed, the first and foremost duty of the Court was to accept the prayer of the applicant for registration of the F. I. R. Because the complainant had got a right to file a complaint is no ground to refuse the prayer for registration of the F. I. R. of cognizable offence, as crime prevention and crime detention is the duty of the police. A. C. J. M. Court No. 1 Aligarh has committed a patent illegality. It should have directed the police to follow the mandate of law as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumari v. State, AIR 2006 SC 1322. Having hot done so the A. C. J. M. Court No. 1 Aligarh has committed a flagrant mis-carriage of justice.