ANJUM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. D. Chaturvedi, J. At the outset learned Counsel for the peti tioner requests for permission to delete the name of the opposite party No. 2 stating that opposite party No. 2 has no locus stand and he was erroneously made opposite party No. 2.

(2.) AGA has no objection. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the name of the opposite party No. 2 during the course of the day.

(3.) THE criteria for ordering the investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. is not solely what the magistrate has stated.