VISHWANATH ALIAS BANDE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the Magistrate bound to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr. P. C.), containing allegations of commission of a cognizable offence? is the main question that falls for consideration in this revision, by means of which the order dated 31. 05. 2007, passed by the Spl. Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jhansi in case No. 298 of 2007, (Vishwanath Pandey @ Bande vs. Rahees and others), has been challenged.

(2.) BY the impugned order, the application moved by the revisionist under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. has been rejected.

(3.) THE facts leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that an application was moved by the applicant/revisionist under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in the court of Spl. Judge (D. A. A.) Jhansi, on 28. 05. 2007 impleading (1) Rahees (2) Shiv Shanker @ Babloo (3) Udai Narayan (4) Ram Kumar (opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5 herein) and one unknown person as accused: Annexure 2 is the copy of that application. The averments made in the application, in brief, are that about three months ago, the accused Rahees etc. had made murderous attack on the applicant by firing and causing injuries to him. A report of that incident was lodged by the applicant under section 307 IPC against opposite parties No. 2 to 5. It is alleged that on 23. 05. 2007 at about 7. 00 p. m. , when the applicant was present at his house, the accused Rahees, Shiv Shankar, Udai Narayan, Ram Kumar and one unknown person, armed with lathi, farsa, axe and tamancha, entered into his house and hurling abuses, they began to cause mar-peet with him. The accused Rahees fired from a tamancha on the applicant but he escaped narrowly. Thereafter, all the accused persons began to commit robbery in the house and they looted Rs. 25,000/- in cash, golden chain, two pair payal, one silver belt and five gold coins from the box. The said incident was witnessed by Shisupal and Mukesh etc. After calling for the report on the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. from the P. S. concerned, the learned special Judge, holding that no cognizable offence is made out, rejected the application vide impugned order, hence this revision.