- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) This revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 24.1.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 28 of 2012 whereby the application moved under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code was treated as complaint by the Judicial Magistrate, Chakia, Chandauli and proceeded to record the statement under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant is the victim in the case who had moved an application under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code on 28.11.2011 that at about 11 A.M. on 12.11.2011 when he was about to go to Gramin Bank to deposit Rs. 20,000/- towards payment of loan the accused persons entered into the house on account of dispute of landed property and used filthy language and assaulted him with kicks and fists and lathi. One of the accused Amit Tiwari had assaulted him with lathi resulting in injury on his right hand and they had also taken away Rs. 20,000/- cash threatening him of dire consequence. The complainant got his medical examination and in X-ray meta corpel bone of right hand was found fractured. He tried to lodge a first information report but no report was lodged. He had also sent a registered complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Chandauli even then no action was taken by the police though a cognizable offence has been made out against the accused persons. The court below instead of directing for investigation by the police has sought report from the police station concerned who had given report that no first information report has been registered in this regard. The court below merely on the ground that the medical has been conducted after two days of which the complainant has not given any cogent explanation and the incident is in the knowledge of the complainant, which requires no investigation by the police further relying upon the Division Bench of this Court in Sukhbasi Lal v. State treated the same as complaint.
(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the complainant is an old man who has tried to lodge the first information report but his report was not registered on account of the influence of the accused persons and when he moved an application under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code the learned Magistrate instead of directing for registration of the first information report treated the same as complaint, though cognizable offence is made out against them, therefore, the order passed by the court below is unsustainable in the eye of law.;