MAHIPAL Vs. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following three cardinal questions fall for consideration in this revision, which has been preferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "the Cr.P.C.") against the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by Sri S. N. H. Zaidi, the then Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 5 of 2008 Mahipal v. Suresh Chand Badhautiya and another, 2009 CrLJ 983 whereby the application moved by the revisionist (herein-after to be referred as 'the applicant') under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected:-

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts emerging from the record leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that the applicant Mahipal (revisionist herein) had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar impleading S.I. Suresh Chand Badhautiya and Station Officer Gyanendra Kumar Singh of P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar as opposite parties. It was prayed in the said application that S.O. P.S. Kasna be directed to register the F.I.R. under Section 161, 166, 167, 218, 221, 222, 524, 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'the I.P.C.') and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and investigate the same. It was alleged in the said application that the applicant had lodged an F.I.R. on 05.01.2008 at P.S. Kasna, where a case under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 506 I.P.C. was registered at crime No. 9 of 2008 against the accused Subhash and others. The investigation of that case was entrusted to S.I. Suresh Chand Badhautiya (O.P. No. 2 herein). It was alleged that the said Sub-Inspector along-with Police Constables and the applicant had arrested the accused Subhash on 08.01.2008 from his residence E 422, West, Karawal Nagar, P.S. Khajuri, New Delhi and he was brought to P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar and was locked in the lock-up, where he remained in the intervening night of 8/9-01-2008 and when the applicant asked the opposite parties to send the accused to Court, they demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribery, but when the applicant declined to oblige the opposite parties and refused to give them money, they released the accused from the lock-up and also fabricated the record.The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved in the Court of Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in the capacity as Special Judge under the P.C. Act. A report was called for from P.S. Kasna about the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of the police report, after hearing the counsel of applicant, the learned Special Judge declined to pass order for registration of the F.I.R. and rejected the said application by the impugned order. Hence, this revision.

(3.) I have heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.