Ravindra Singh - (1.) - This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 1.12.2006 passed by learned C.J.M. Farrukhabad in complaint case No. 5872 of 2006, whereby the complaint has been dismissed under Section 203, Cr. P.C. and the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2007, whereby the revision filed by the applicant has been dismissed.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that a complaint has been filed by the applicant, in support of this complaint statement of the applicant has been recorded under Section 200, Cr. P.C. and the statements of the witnesses of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have been recorded under Section 202, Cr. P.C., but the learned Magistrate concerned without considering the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and other material available on record, dismissed the complaint without any proper reason. IT has been mentioned in the impugned order dated 1.12.2006 that the statements of the witnesses under Section 202, Cr. P.C. have not been recorded, it has been wrongly mentioned because the judgment dated 16.4.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad clearly shows that the statements of P.W. 1 Arbind Kumar and P.W. 2 Dinesh Chandra under Section 202, Cr. P.C. have been recorded, which shows that the learned Magistrate has not perused the record including the statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and passed impugned order dated 1.12.2006 by which the complaint has been dismissed, which is illegal the revisional court has also not considered the error committed by the learned C.J.M. Farrukhabad. The impugned orders are illegal and is liable to be set aside. In reply to the above submissions it is contended by the learned A.G.A. that the learned Magistrate has not passed a reasoned order. The revisional court has also passed a reasoned order by dismissing the criminal revision filed by the applicant. There is no illegality in the impugned orders. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and from the perusal of the record it appears that according to the impugned order dated 1.12.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate concerned the statements under Section 202, Cr. P.C. have not been recorded whereas the judgment of the revisional court shows that the statements of P.W. 1 Arbind Kumar and P.W. 2 Dinesh Chandra have been recorded under Section 202, Cr. P.C., it shows that the learned Magistrate concerned has passed the order dated 1.12.2006 without perusing the record. The impugned order dated 1.12.2006 is illegal and is set aside. The revisional court has also not considered this error committed by the learned C.J.M., in dismissing the revision vide order dated 16.4.2007, which is illegal and is hereby set aside.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 1.12.2006 passed by the learned C.J.M. Farrukhabad and order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad are hereby set aside and the learned C.J.M. Farrukhabad is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint filed by the applicant in accordance with the provisions of law. With this direction, this application is finally disposed of.;