JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Munne Lal, learned AGA for the State.

2. This is a revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. instituted by the revisionist herein challenging the order dated 13.4.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh passed in Criminal Case No.99 of 2022 (Ram Pratap Singh Vs. Rakesh Singh and others) rejecting the application so preferred Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali (Shahar), District Azamgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that he is the member of one of the committee of the Ruling party and so far as the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are concerned they are also having some political connections. According to learned counsel for the revisionist on 4.2.2022 the revisionist received a phone call from the opposite party no.2 requiring him to present in the house and the revisionist thereafter proceeded to his house on 11.35 wherein the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were already present and they hurled abuses in Hindi vernacular and thereafter administered beating and robbed the revisionist of an amount of Rs.8500/-. He has further argued that he had taken all the steps for lodging of the FIR, however the same was not done so he preferred an application on 25.2.2022 before the court below under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging of the first information report which now has been rejected by the court below on 13.4.2022. He has further argued that the entire approach so sought to be adopted by the court below while rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is patently illegal besides being directing in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. Laws (SC) 2013 1115. He has further argued that in a cryptic manner without discussing the contentions so sought to be raised by the revisionist the claim so set up by the revisionist has been turned down.

4. Sri Munne Lal, learned AGA has countered the submission of the revisionist while arguing that there are ample evidence available on record so as to justify passing of the order and this Court in the proceeding under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. cannot act as an appellate authority while taking different view from the view so taken by the Magistrate while passing the order concerned.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Before proceeding further it is apt to discuss and analyse the statutory provisions purported to be under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., 1973 as applicable in the State of U.P.

"397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,-recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

Explanation.-All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- section and of section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

401. High Court' s Powers of revisions.

(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or Which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the