- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri R. C. Srivastava and S. P. Singh Parmar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30-11-2004, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi in which the application filed by petitioner No. 1 under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was rejected. It is contended that the impugned order is illegal because the learned Magistrate had tried to assess the truthfulness of the allegations for which he was not legally permitted and has recorded the finding on the basis of the allegations made in application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. prima facie cognizable offence is not made out, the finding is perverse. It is against the evidence present on the record because on the basis of the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , prima facie cognizable offence is made out. Learned A. G. A. opposed the contention of the petitioner by submitting that the learned Magistrate has passed a reasoned order. From perusal of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out and from the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate had tried to assess the truthfulness of the allegations and he had scrutinised the allegations for which he was not legally empowered. As such the impugned order dated 30-11-2004 is illegal order which is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, impugned order dated 30-11-2004 passed by learned CJM Bhadohi is set aside and learned CJM Bhadohi is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of the law on the application dated 22-11-2004 filed by the petitioner under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. within a reasonable time. With this observation, this writ petition is finally disposed of. Petition allowed. .;