Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Learned counsel for the revisionist at the out set submitted that he may be permitted to delete the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 from the array of parties and to make necessary corrections in the memo of revision. The request is allowed. The necessary corrections be made during the course of the day.

2. Heard Sri Jai Shanker Audichya, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. for the State and as agreed by the said learned counsel, this revision is being decided finally.

3. The revision has been preferred aggrieved by the order dated 13th February, 2009 passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.) Farrukhabad in Misc. Case No. 04/12/08 (Roop Ram v. Sonu and another) rejecting the application of the revisionist preferred under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) seeking a direction to the police to make investigation in respect to his complaint constituting commission of a cognizable offence after registering a first information report (hereinafter referred to as the "F.I.R.").

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Court below has rejected