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

2. Since only a question of law is involved in this case, therefore, in agreement of with both the parties, this revision is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself and is decided finally by this order.

3. The question of law involved in this case is as to what is the scope and power of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. But before adverting to the said contention, which constitute legal submission raised by both sides, a narration of the facts seems to be indispensable must.

4. Rajwati wife of Ajay Pal Singh is the resident of village Angadpur, P.S. Sakit, district Etah. On 20.2.2006 her son Shankar Bhan Singh was attempted to be annihilated by firing murderous shots at him by Radhey Shyam and others in which Shankar Bhan Singh sustained serious injuries. A report of the said incident was lodged at P.S. Sakit. To save their skin from the aforesaid crime, which resulted in the registration of the case against the malefactors, Radhey Shyam accused in the aforesaid case managed a false medical and x-ray report of one Mukesh Kumar prepared and thereafter lodged a FIR against Pratap Bhan @ Rakesh another son of Rajwati. On coming to know of the false medical and x-ray reports Rajwati made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Etah for getting Mukesh Kumar re-examined medically. Though Mukesh Kumar got himself medically examined again but he refused to submit himself for being re­x-rayed. The filing of the aforesaid re-medical examination application Radhey Shyam and others malefactors nurtured a feeling of revenge. On 30.5.2006 at about 7.30 a.m. Radhey Shyam accompanied by Ram Singh, Ram Sewak, Jabar Singh, Sarjoo etc. armed with firearm weapons, lathi and danda reached at the house of Rajwati and committed dacoity in her house of cloths, ornaments and cash of Rs. 5,000/-. On resistance being shown by her daughter-in-law Smt. Sunita and her husband Ajay Kumar, they were assaulted. Hue and cry of victims attracted Shaitan Singh, Surajmukhi, Kamal Singh etc. who saved their lives. The revisionist Rajwati was threatened for her life, if she does not withdraw her application for re-medical examination of Mukesh Kumar. Ajay Kumar and Sunita the two injured were got medically examined in Government District Hospital Etah. The police refused to register the FIR, which was attempted to be lodged by Smt. Rajwati. Consequently, left with no other option Smt. Rajwati sent a written application to SSP Etah through speed post. She attempted to get the FIR lodged under the orders of superior authority but with no results. Consequently, as a last chance Smt. Rajwati the present revisionist wielded the power of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. on 28.6.2006 on which Misc. Case No. 96 of 2006 was registered before Special Judge (D.A.A.) Etah. She appended the medical report of the two injured persons alongwith her application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. which indicated that Ajay Kumar had sustained four injuries; two contusions and two abrasions and Smt. Sunita had sustained four contusions. The aforesaid application under Section 156 (3) was rejected by Special Judge (D.A.A.) Etah vide his impugned order dated 21.7.2006 by passing the following order :

“Heard and perused the record and the police report as for which already C.S. is said to have been submitted against the son of applicant. It is also on the record that both parties are in enmity and to tease each other they often move false applications to drag the other party into litigation. In the light of the police report no prima-facie cognizable offence appears to have been committed hence application is liable to be rejected.”

5. Aggrieved by the rejection of the aforesaid application the revisionist has approached this Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. by filing the present revision.

Section 156