- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 21st June, 2005, hereinafter referred to as impugned order, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, whereby and where -under application moved by petitioner under sub -section 3 of Section 156 of Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter for short Code, came to be dismissed. Heard.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner argued that an application under sub -section 3 of Section 156 of the Code came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag. Trial Court sought report from police and after receiving report, dismissed the application illegally and erroneously in terms of the impugned order. Learned Magistrate had to take cognizance in terms of Section 190 of the Code and conduct enquiry or had to direct police to register a case. The procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is illegal and erroneous. The impugned order is illegal and has caused miscarriage of justice and also suffers from perversity. Learned counsel for respondents argued that impugned order is well reasoned, needs no interference. In order to marshal and thrash out the controversy, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the case herein: -
(3.) IT appears that there was a dispute about the trees in between respondents and petitioner including the deceased, namely, Ghulam Rasool. Tehsildar Anantnag had directed, vide order bearing No. 1603/OQ dated 4th November, 2004, Naib Tehsildar to cut down the trees. Naib Tehsildar asked SHO concerned vide order dated 11th April, 2005 to provide police protection. Naib Tehsildar, accordingly, proceeded on spot and complied with the directions. Thereafter, Ghulam Rasool Rayoo died after a few days. It appears that petitioner herein, Mohammad Yousuf Rayoo son of deceased, Ghulam Rasool Rayoo, had filed an application before the District Mobile Magistrate Traffic, Anantnag, on 2nd May, 2005 with the allegations that after cutting down the trees the complainant/petitioner approached the police for registering the case but police denied to register the case and due to the denial of the registration of the case by Police the deceased suffered heavy heart attack and died. The Photostat copy of the said application is on the record. It is profitable to reproduce para -6 of the said application herein: - "6. That due to denial for the registering the case the owner of the said land suffered heart attack and ultimately died of the heart attack.";