Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA.

2. The application under Section 156 (3); Cr. P C. filed by Har Prasad the present revisionist did disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 395, IPC as the number of assailants were more than five. The Special Judge, Budaun by rejecting the prayer for registration and investigation of the case has committed a miscarriage of justice. At the stage of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which is a pre-cognizance stage, once cognizable offence is disclosed through that application it was the duty of the concerned Court to order for registration and investigation of the offence as crime detection and crime prevention are the foremost duty of the police and not of the Court. The aforesaid law has been laid down as far back as in 1947 by the Privy Council in the celebrated judgment Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 17. The said judgment has been affirmed by the Apex Court also in many subsequent judgments. The impugned order dated 5.9.2006 passed by Special Judge (DAA), Budaun in Misc. Case No. 265 of 2006 is against the statutory provision under Section 156 (3), Cr. P C. as