IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of examining all relevant witnesses and the casual approach of the lower courts in ignoring mandatory provisions of law under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ishtiyak Ahmad, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Amit Kumar with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 21.09.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2013 (Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another) by which the learned Judge has rejected the revision of the petitioner, which was preferred against the order dated 24.05.2013, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai in Criminal Case No. 1277 of 2013 (Shatrughan Singh Vs. Ajay Kumar and Others) under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.

3. Relevant facts are as below:-

- An FIR case crime no. 1005 of 2002 under sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC, naming three persons including the petitioner-Amit Kumar was lodged by Shatrughan Singh, alleging that three persons lay in wait and attacked his brother Satyabhan Singh when he went to attend call of the nature at about 3:15 am on 28.11.2001; all the three were holding firearms, one of them Ajai Kumar Sharma fired at him which hit on his right side below the shoulder; seriously injured he fell down; on his cries, the first informant and other members of his family reached the spot to save him but the accused persons escaped, extending threats to his life.

- After the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a final report with the opinion that the incident was doubtful and that the accused persons were falsely named.

- The first informant moved a protest petition which was treated as complaint; the informant/the complainant was examined under section 200 Cr.P.C.; certain witnesses namely, the injured-Satyabhan as PW-1, Ranbir Singh as PW-2 and Mohit as PW-3, were examined under section 202 Cr.P.C.

- The C.J.M. thereafter proceeded to summon Amit Kumar and Arvind Kumar Sharma for offence under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC by an order dated 24.05.2013.

- The accused preferred Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2013, which was decided by the Session Judge, Jalaun at Orai by on order dated 21.09.2013, whereby the order passed by the Court of C.J.M. was affirmed and revision rejected.

- Now one of the accused Amit Kumar is before this Court, invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and has challenged both the aforesaid orders.

4. Very first objection from the opposite side is that the petitioner has filed Misc. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, instead he should have filed Misc. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the above issue, I prefer to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423. In the above noted case, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that order of judicial court could be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under original writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, there is no legal hindrance in converting the petition under Article 226 to one under Article 227 of the Constitution. I, therefore, treat this petition as one under Article 227 of the Constitution. The registry shall assign appropriate number accordingly.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of the incident, he was on duty and therefore the investigating officer submitted a final report on 17.01.2002; the allegation in the FIR is that at about 3:15 am on 28.11.2001, three persons attacked the injured and only one of them i.e., Ajai Kumar Sharma (who is not the petitioner in the instant petition) actually fired on Satyabhan; Admittedly, Satyabhan sustained a single firearm injury, through and through over his right arm. The forceful contention of the petitioner is that his name has been dragged in the FIR falsely