A prima facie cognizable offense warrants direction to register a case under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C., and technical objections to the application can be rectified with a subsequent application.

RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vinay Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A. G. A. and Sri K. K. Mishra learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.

( 2 ) THIS petition is filed with a prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 19. 9. 2003 passed by learned A. C. J. M. , 4th, Jaunpur, whereby the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed and the judgment and order dated 10. 2. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2004 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. has been filed by the respondent No. 3. The same was allowed by the learned magistrate on 30. 1. 2003 and the Station Officer of the P. S. Jafarabad was directed to register a case and investigate the same, but this order dated 30. 1. 2003 was set aside by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, in Criminal Revision No. 61 of 2003 on 13. 5. 2003 whereby the revision was allowed and the matter was remitted to the court of magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law. Thereafter, the learned a. C. J. M. , Court No. 15, Jaunpur rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. on 30. 5. 2003, but that order was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions

( 3 ) JUDGE, Fast Track Court No. 5, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 321 of 2003 and the matter was again remitted back to the court of learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provision of law. Thereafter, the matter was again considered by the learned A. C. J. M. , 4th, Jaunpur and again he rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. on 5. 9. 2003. This order was not challenged by the respondent No. 3 before any superior court.

( 4 ) FROM the perusal of the order dated 5. 9. 2003 it appears that the learned Magistrate has rejected the application on the ground that in support of the allegation made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. the photostat copies of the medical examination report, supplementary medical examination report and the X-ray report have been filed which are not admissible, but the respondent No. 3 again filed an application 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in which the prayer of summoning the original medical examination report, supplementary medical examination report and the X-ray report was also made. This application dated 11. 9. 2003 was allowed by the learned A. C. J. M. , 4th, Jaunpur on 19. 9. 2003 and the S. O. of P. S. Jafrabad was directed to register the case and investigate the same. Against this order the petitioners filed a criminal revision No. 512 of 2003. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, fast Track Court No. 2, Jaunpur on 10. 2. 2004. In the present writ petition the order dated 19. 9. 2003 and the order dated 10. 2. 2004 are under challenge.

( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed by the respondent No. 3 which was ultimately rejected on 5. 9. 2003 by the learned A. C. J. M. , 4th, Jaunpur. That order has not been challenged before any superior court, but a second application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed. The same was allowed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners against that order. Both the orders are illegal which have not been passed in accordance with the provisions of law, because the subsequent application under Section 156 (3)Cr. P. C. was not maintainable. It is barred by the provisions of law and the impugned order dated 19. 9. 2003 is barred by Section 362 Cr. P. C. It is further contended that even on the basis of the allegation made in application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. cognizance offence is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document