JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

2. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist/applicant registered as Misc. Case No. 136 of 2018, Vinod Kumar vs. Aidal Singh , P.S. Gabhana, Aligarh was rejected by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Aligarh vide order dated 26.05.2018, feeling aggrieved of which, the present revision has been filed.

3. The submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, in brief, are that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts of the case and evidence on record. It is against the provisions of law and suffers from the jurisdictional error as the jurisdiction vested in the Court has not been exercised properly. The observations made by the learned Sessions Court are perverse and arbitrary in nature. From a bare perusal of the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. a cognizable offence was clearly made out and the Court ought to have ordered for the registration of F.I.R. and investigation into the matter, but the same was rejected in an illegal manner. Hence, a prayer has been made to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the present revision.

4. The learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have vehemently opposed the present revision and it has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the legal principles governing the matter. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist was not sustainable in law and the learned Sessions Court committed no legal or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

5. The factual scenario, as reveals from the perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is that on 09.03.2018, the victim, daughter of the applicant, aged about 14 years, had gone to some outer place alongwith other women of the village. In the night at 11:00 P.M., the accused seduced her minor daughter and taking her into a Car, committed rape upon her and pressed her mouth so that she could not make any shriek. She was also threatened for her life. The incident was informed by the victim to her mother and when the informant, who was not present in the village, came back, his wife told him the incident. He searched for the accused, but could not find. Subsequently, on 27.03.2018, the accused again made an attempt to drag the victim when she was coming with her mother and when the wife of the informant and other witnesses tried to hold him, he fled away. Several applications were moved by the informant to the S.S.P. and other Police Officers and Human Rights Commission and he also went to P.S. Gabhana, but no report was lodged. Hence, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the concerned Magistrate.

6. Applications given to Station Officer, P.S. Gabhana, Aligarh dated 27.03.2018 and to S.S.P., Aligarh dated 28.03.2018 with Registry receipts were made annexure to the application. The learned Sessions Judge considering the allegations made therein false, frivolous and unnatural and also finding that no medical examination of the victim was performed, rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 26.05.2018.

7. From the rival contentions of both the sides, some relevant points for determination emerge out.

Point for determination No. 1

8. At the very outset, it is desirable to elucidate whether the p