Umeshwar Pandey, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) By the impugned order dated 27.09.2004, the court below has treated the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a criminal complaint. Learned counsel contends that such order in law is not permissible.
(3.) The learned counsel while placing reliance upon Mahboob Ali v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2001 (Suppl.) ACC 277 and Abdul Sattar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2003 (2) JIC 356 (All.) has contended that an application moved before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a criminal complaint and proceeded with in accordance with Chapter XV of the Code. While respectfully disagreeing with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Mahood Ali (supra), I may mention that the law laid down in not a good law and is contrary to the Full Bench decision of this court in Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 While laying down the law on the point, the Full Bench relied upon the case law of Suresh Chandra Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. AIR2001 SC 571 , 2001 CriLJ954 , JT2001 (2 )SC 81 , 2001 (1 )KLT623 (SC ), RLW2001 (2 )SC 317 , 2001 (1 )SCALE93 , 2001 (1 )UJ420 (SC ). The law laid down in the case of Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors. v. State of Assam and Anr. AIR 1961 S.C. 986 and Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh 1977 (14) ACC 364 (S.C.) have also been considered by the Full Bench and settled proposition of law on this point has been given as below: In this connection it may be immediately added that where in an application, a complainant states facts which constitute cognizable offence but makes a defective prayer, such an application will not cease to be a complaint nor can the Magistrate refuse to treat it as a complaint even though there be no prayer seeking trial of the known or unknown accused. The Magistrate has to deal with such facts as constitute cognizable offence and for all practical purposes even such an application would be a complaint.;