GOPALJI BARANWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. By the order dated 11-9-1998 this Court directed the office to summon the lower Court record but the same has not been received. Mr. Misra prays that a fresh order should be passed calling for the record from the lower Court.

(2.) AFTER hearing Mr. Misra on merits on the revision petition this Court does not feel any necessity to call for the lower Court record hence the revision petition is heard on merit with the help of the materials on record.

(3.) THE impugned order itself speaks that the first complaint was not dismissed under Section 203, Cr. PC. rather it was dismissed as not pressed. THErefore the argument does not appear convincing. If the complaint petition could have got the result on merits of its allegations, Mr. Misra could have been justified in assailing the impugned order but since the first complaint did not get the result according to law, the word used for the complaint dated 2-3-1996 in a second complaint is not Court (sic correct ). If the Court did not pass any order on the first complaint dated 28-2-1996 the complainant was forced to file another complaint dated 2-3-1996 and cognizance on the basis of the materials available on the record after enquiry under Section 201, Cr. PC. is perfectly in accord ance with the provisions of law under the Code of Criminal Procedure.