MAMTA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 5.2.09 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Varanasi whereby an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist was rejected. It appears from the record that an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist alleging therein that on 28.12.07 the opposite parties came to the clinic of her husband and without serving any notice demolished the clinic due to which her husband suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000/- Again on 29.12.07 opposite parties came there and asked the husband of the revisionist to demolish his house and the clinic. When her husband tried to show the papers of ownership, someone pelted a stone which hit at the face of O.P. No.2. He, then, ordered for beating the persons present there. Thereafter, the husband and his brother were beaten by the opposite parties. The ACJM was of the opinion that whatever was being done by the opposite parties was an authorised act permissible under the law and it cannot be said that they had committed any cognizable offence. The beating as alleged by the revisionist appears to have been done in self defence. Heard Mr. Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Tiwary that the Magistrate had rejected the application on wrong considerations. I do not agree. It appears from the contents of the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. that the action alleged to have been taken by the opposite parties was an action authorised under the law and it cannot be said that they were doing any unlawful act and as such no cognizable offence can be said to have been made out. If in the discharge of the official duties they were beaten, it is quite possible that in order to save themselves some force was used by them for which they were legally entitled. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, the Magistrate was right in not proceeding with the application. There appears no impropriety or illegality in the order. The revision has no force and it is dismissed.