VINOD PRASAD,J. - (1.) THE application filed by the revisionist Ram Pal Singh on 17 -10 -2006 before the C.J.M. Bulandshahr under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. registered as Misc. Application No. 1096 of 2006 indicated commission of cognizable offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. The said application was filed against Sanjay Solanki in the thumb nail description of the allegations being that, Sanjay Solanki took away Tarachand alongwith him on 30 -6 -2006 at 9 a.m. from the house of the applicant Ram Pal Singh and since then the aforesaid Tarachand is missing. At the time, when Tarachand was taken away by the alleged accused Sanjay Solanki, Prakasho, wife of the applicant Pintoo and his cousin brother were present. On the inquiry made by the applicant Ram Pal Singh regarding the elopement of Tarachand, the malefactor Sanjay Solanki did not give a fitting reply and became ready to fight with the applicant. The applicant showed his apprehension that Sanjay Solanki has been murdered and his dead -body had been disposed off. C.J.M. Bulandshahr vide his impugned order dated 7 -11 -2006, rejected the application and did not pass an order for registration and investigation primarily on the premise that there was a civil litigation going on and because of that the application has been filed by the applicant.
(2.) I have heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA at a great length. Sri Gaurav Kakkar argued that the impugned order dated 7 -11 - 2006 is absolutely illegal, unjustified and is beyond the scope of power of Magistrate under Section 156 Cr.P.C. He submitted that the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. did not disclose commission of cognizable offence and, therefore, the C.J.M. is wholly unjustified in not granting the prayer made by the applicant in the aforesaid application and consequently the impugned order result in miscarriage of justice. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the present revision deserves to be allowed.
(3.) LEARNED AGA, also could not support the impugned order as commission of cognizable offence was disclosed and the matter should have been ordered to be investigated.;