S. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the state. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 28.6.2010 passed by ACJM-III, Jaunpur in criminal misc. case No. 275 of 2010, Ranjeet Yadav v. Shyam Lal and others, whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party No. 2 Ranjeet Yadav, the complainant, was allowed and the concerned Station Officer was directed to register the FIR and investigate the matter.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist submitted that though both the parties resided at Goa, but they are originally residents of District Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh. The allegations of harassment and maltreatment of the wife of revisionist No.6 relate to incident, which took place at Goa and the Magistrate at Jaunpur had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the Magistrate has not carefully considered the contents of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. otherwise the factum of lack of jurisdiction would have come to his knowledge. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties originally belong to District Jaunpur. The complainant is the cousin brother of the victim Kavita Devi, the wife of revisionist No.6. Kavita Devi used to live with her husband at Goa, but on 19.5.2010, to avoid Goa Police, the accused persons brought Kavita to their ancestral place in Parahit, P.S, Machhlishahar, District Jaunpur. On 21.5.2010, the victim was beaten and left at Khushapur Tiraha in Haiderpur Bazar. She was medically examined on 22.5.2010 and application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 28.6.2010. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. wherein it was held that on receipt of a complaint, the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the allegations in the complaint. He may not at once proceed to take cognizance, but also may order it to go to the police station for being registered and investigated and the order must indicate application of mind. I have perused the copy of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The victim was brought by the accused persons to Parahit, P.S. Machhlishahar, District Jaunpur on 21.5.2010 and on the same day she was beaten and left at Haiderpur Bazar from where she came to her cousin brother's house. Allegedly the incident took place within District Jaunpur and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order recites that in the application, allegations of demand of dowry, harassment by husband and his family members, beating etc. have been made. Mention of injury report is also there. Though, the Magistrate did not say so that prima facie cognizable offence is made out, but the substance of allegations made in the application has been narrated in the order, which clearly indicates commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. All offences, except Section 323 IPC, are cognizable offences, therefore, Magistrate was well within his authority to order investigation by police.
(3.) IT will not be out of place to mention that the revisionists are accused in the case. Prospective accused have no right to challenge an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the registration of FIR and investigation. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of prima facie offence and the Magistrate has rightly ordered registration of FIR and investigation. Revision at the instance of prospective accused is not maintainable and is accordingly rejected. It will be open to the revisionist to file a writ petition for quashing the FIR after the same has been registered at the police station. Revision dismissed.;