- (1.) K. N. Sinha, J. The present application has been moved to quash the order dated 28-1-2003 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate VII. Kanpur Nagar, dismissing the application of the applicant moved under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and the order dated 18-2-2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2003 dismissing the revision.
(2.) THE applicant Yogendra Singh moved an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that applicant approached the Manager of TATA FINANCE LTD, Sri Sanjay Trivedi for financing the 'maruti Van'. He also deposited Rs. 77960/- (Seventy Seven thousand Nine hundred sixty only) and remaining amount was financed by Tata Finance in the year 1998. THE vehicle was delivered to the applicant by Tata Finance limited. Lateron the vehicle was detained at Police Station Philkhana, Kanpur Nagar, then the petitioner could know that the vehicle was arranged by Punjab National Bank by defrauding the applicant. The Metropolitan Magistrate, VII Kanpur Nagar dismissed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. This application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was moved for registration of the case. Being aggrieved by the said order Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2003 was filed by the applicant before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar who summarily dismissed the revision without assigning any reason. The present application has been moved for quashing of the above orders. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the order of the revisional Court is without any reason and the dismissal order has been passed holding that there is no irregularity or jurisdictional error. Learned Counsel has relied upon 2002 SCC (Cri) 340, Paul George v. State, wherein the apex Corut has taken adverse note of such type of cryptic and telegraphic order. The Apex Court held: "mere ritual of repeating the words or language used in the provisions, saying that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error is found in the judgment under challenge without even a whisper of the merit of the matte of nature of pleas raised does not meet the requirement of decision of a case judicially. "
(3.) IN the order dated 18-2-2003, the revisional Corut has simply repeated the words used in the provision and passed the impugned order without applying his mind or considering the revision on merit. It resulted in unnecessary harassing of the applicant to redress his grievance. Consequently, the application is allowed the impugned order dated 18-2-2003 passed by the revisional Court and the order dated 28-1-2003 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate VII, Kanpur Nagar is quashed. The case is remanded to the Sessions Judge, Kanapur Nagar for hearing the revision on merit and pass a reasoned order. Application allowed. .;