JUDGEMENT
Vinod Prasad, J. -
(1.) Heard learned
Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
This application is being disposed of at
the admission stage itself.
An application under Section 156(3),
Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant Pappu son
of Shullur r/o Village Kanwar, P .S. Balua,
District Chandauli against 16 accused persons in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli on 21.9.2005. The allegation in
the application was that on 28.11.2005 Hira
Lal, the brother of Pappu, was a candidate
for the election of village Pradhan but he
lost the election by 81 votes. Because of the
aforesaid enmity of election, the accused
persons, namely Rajendra, Ishwar Dayal,
Shyamjeet Pandey @ Kallu, Onkar Pandey,
Brijesh Singh, Pradeep Singh, Sita Ram
Singh, Madhu Mangal Singh, Bharat Singh,
Raghunath Singh, Parahoo, Panaroo,
Sanjeev, Neeraj Singh, Umshanker, Sudhir,
on 29.8.2005 at 8.00 a.m., armed with Lathi
and illegal arms raided the house of the
applicant and no sooner their arrival there,
they started abusing and attacked the family member of the Pappu
aforesaid. Accused
Rajendra Ram and Sudhir Yadav fired with
their country made pistols on the brother
of the applicant Mahendra. As a result of
shooting, Mahendra, Pappu and Dashrath
received injuries. On hue and cry being
raised many people of the village collected
on the spot. Moti, Lallan and Shanker intervened in the incident.
After the aforesaid
assault, the accused persons trespassed into
the house of the applicant Pappu and damaged the house hold goods.
The accused also threatened the applicant Pappu with dire
consequences. The applicant Pappu along
with his brother went to the police station
to get the FIR registered, but the same was
not registered under the pressure of local
M.L.A., as the accused persons were relatives of the said M.L.A.
The applicant Pappu was wrongly challaned in Crime 65 of 2005,
State of U.P. v. Heera Lal and Others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308,
IPC and
Crime No. 67 of 2005, under Sections 8/21,
N.D.P.S. Act and also Case Crime No. 66 of
2005, under Sections 3/25, Arms Act. He had
given an application to the S. P. Chandauli,
D.I.G., Varanasi but, when nothing was
done, then he filed an application, on
1.9.2005, under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. in
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli.
The applicant also filed the medical examination report of the
injured persons along
with his said application. The Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli,
vide his order dated
28.11.2005 had rejected the aforesaid application of the applicant
holding that there
was no need of investigation in the said incident.
The learned Magistrate held that the
role of each individual accused was not mentioned in application
under Section 156 (3),
Cr.P.C. and there was some contradiction
in the medical report vis-a-vis application
under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate relied upon a
judgment of this Court
did not care to mention it in his said order
dated 28.11.2005.
(2.) Aggrieved by that order dated
28.11.2005 the applicant preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge,
Chandauli which was registered a. Criminal Revision
No. 153 of 2005, Pappu v. State of U.P. The
lower Revisional Court also dismissed the
revision on the ground that the learned
Magistrate was justified in rejecting the
application of the revisionist.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Rajendra Singh,
learned Counsel for the applicant and
learned A.G.A. at great length.;