MOHD YOUSUF RAYOO Vs. GH RASOOL BHAT
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Mohd Yousuf Rayoo
Gh Rasool Bhat
Click here to view full judgement.
(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.
(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
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
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
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.