RAJJAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether the Magistrate, who has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, can pass the order for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the 'Cr. P.C.')?" is the main question that falls for consideration in this revision, which has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Hamirpur in Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2004, Namo Narayan Tiwari v. State of U. P. and another.

(2.) BY the impugned judgment, the lower revisional court has set aside the order dated 7.6.2004 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C., was allowed and S.O. P. S. Sumerpur was directed to investigate the case after registration of the F.I.R.

(3.) SINCE the prospective accused (Constable Namo Narayan Tiwari and Home Guard Daljit in the present case) have no right to challenge the order of registration of F.I.R. and its investigation, hence notices of this revision have not been issued to them. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Prof. Ram Naresh Chaudhary and another v. State of U. P. and another, 2008 (60) ACC 476 : 2008 (1) ACR 874 and Gulam Mustafa alias Jobbar v. State of U. P. and others, 2008 (61) ACC 922 : 2008 (2) ACR 2039.