RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE called out in the revised list. None appears for the opp. party nos. 2 to 6, although the case was listed? peremptorily.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the complainant-revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was given by the revisionist on 27.6.1997 and after calling for a report from the police station,which was received on 13.3.1997, it was rejected on 6.10.1997. However, on an? FIR dated 21.11.1997, the order dated 1.4.2000 summoning the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 6 was passed by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi. The revisional court? as mentioned above has set aside this order on the ground that the jurisdiction for hearing the cases under Sections 302, 304B and 396 I.P.C lays with the Chief Judicial Magistrate because of an administrative circular, issued by the High Court and that the order could not have been passed by the 2nd A.C.J.M.