ZILEDAR Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

(2.) Annexure-3 to the writ petition is an application under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. moved at the instance of the petitioner. The allegation is that his son was found missing and he has not been traced out so far. The specific allegation has been raised in the application that he had gone along with Jagdish Chandra Gupta with a tractor and whereabouts of his son is not known since then. After recording the statements under sections 200 and 202 Crimial P.C. the Magistrate rejected the complaint under Sec. 203 Crimial P.C. on 07.12.2005. This order was challenged in a criminal revision, which was also dismissed on 20.11.2006. Both the orders are impugned in the instant writ petition.

(3.) After going through the application under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. it transpires that the allegation in the application clearly makes out a cognizable offence and it was the duty of the learned Magistrate to direct the police station concerned to register and investigate the matter, and also direct the concerned police station to trace out the missing person. The Magistrate, on the contrary treated the application as complaint case and finally rejected the complaint under Sec. 203 Crimial P.C. On perusal of the two orders, it is apparent that the Magistrate has completely misdirected himself while treating the application as a complaint case and subsequently rejected it by means of the impugned order. In view of the various decisions of this Court in the cases of Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2005 (51) ACC 901 HC , Ram Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2006 (55) ACC 763 Sukhveer Singh Vs. State of U.P, 2006 (55) ACC 889 , Govind and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2003 Curr BC 934 (DB) , the Magistrate has no option but to direct the police station concerned to register and investigate the matter, in the event the allegation spells out commission of a cognizable offence.