- (1.) K. S. Rakhra, J. Heard Sri B. K. Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State and none responds for opposite parties although they have been served.
(2.) THROUGH this writ petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10- 11-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur in Criminal Revision No. 72 of 2003. The facts as stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner and appearing from the record are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of plot No. 366 in village Amya Deoria of P. S. Utraula District Balrampur. He made an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. saying that the opposite parties have forged certain documents showing transfer of his land by someone else in favour of opposite party No. 4-Anwari Begum. Some of the accused persons are the witnesses of the sale-deed and some are the scribe. The learned Magistrate observed that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. shows commission of cognizable offence and directed the police to investigate the matter. This order of investigation passed on 30-5-2003, was challenged by the accused persons through revision No. 72 of 2003 before the learned Sessions Judge. On 3rd June, 2003 the learned Sessions Judge admitted the revision and issued notice to the petitioner. However, no stay order was passed with regard to the order passed by the learned Magistrate but only arrest of the accused was stayed. While this revision was pending,the police investigated the matter and immediately filed the charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 9th October, 2003 took cognizance on the said charge-sheet submitted by the police. A case has been registered under Section 419/420/467/468 IPC of P. S. Uttraula, District Balrampur. After the cognizance has been taken and the proceedings are continuing in the Court of the learned Magistrate, the revision preferred by the accused persons came up for hearing and on 10-11- 2003, learned Sessions Judge has passed the order setting aside the order dated 30-5-2003 passed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the Magistrate while allowing the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. directed investigation in the matter by the police but had not specified which cognizable offence appears to have been taken. The learned Magistrate has only mentioned that cognizable offence has been committed.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be quashed primarily on the ground that the police has already submitted charge-sheet under Section 419/420/467/468 IPC after collecting evidence and the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance under Section 119 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. It has been contended by the learned Counsel that the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 30-5-2003 has exhausted and thus lost all significance and cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate on the police report submitted after investigation. THE order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be quashed in the manner as has been done under the order of the learned Sessions Judge. In view of the facts an circumstances mentioned above, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is liable to be accepted. Whenever there is a report filed will the police about the commission of cognizable offence, the police is under obligation to investigate and if they fail to investigate, the law provides a liberty to the aggrieved party to make an application before the learned Magistrate for investigation by the police. Now since investigation has been done and evidence has been collected showing commission of cognizable offence, the questions whether the investigation has been done under the direction of the Magistrate or otherwise loose its significance.;