KANHAIYA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for the revisionist to press this revision.

(2.) Heard Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 and learned A.G,A. and perused record.

(3.) It appears from the record that an application under Sec. 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, was moved by the opposite party No. 3, on which an order of investigation was passed by the learned Magistrate, but it appears that subsequently the word 'Vivechna ho' was substituted by 'Adam Taftish'. The opposite party No. 3 moved another application which was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that in case cognizable offence has been made out, the police can suo moto investigate the base. The opposite party No. 3 filed Criminal Revision No. 117 of 1996 which has been allowed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 21.6.96. This order of the learned Sessions Judge is challenged on the ground that earlier, Magistrate has already passed an order directing the registration and investigation of the case. There is no necessity of passing fresh order and, that no direction for registering the case can be made by the Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge has, at length, considered the argument and has disposed of criminal revision by well considered judgment. No interference is called for.