- (1.) This is an application for recall of the judgment and order dated 28-2-2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 966 of 2002 (Smt. Gayatri Misra v. State of U. P. and others)
(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the applicant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. against the opposite parties No. 2 to 8 in the'Courtof Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Ballia, which was registered as 'Crl. Misc. Case No. 208 of 2002. That application was allowed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 8-7-2002 whereby he directed the Station Officer concerned to register a case against the accused and investigate the same. Aggrieved with that order the accused of that case had filed Criminal Revision No. 292 of 2002 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ballia, which was heard and decided by Sri. Subedar Yadav, Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Ballia wide his judgment and order dated 30-1-2003, After hearing the parties he was of the view that there was no necessity of police investigation in the case, and he, therefore, passed an order setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate, whereby the police was directed to register a case and investigate. He, however, gave an option to the learned Magistrate to treat the above application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. as a complaint and to proceed with it as complaint case. Aggrieved with that order the complainant filed this revision before this Court.
(3.) The above revision was fixed for bearing in this Court on 28-2-2007. Om the above date none appeared for the revisionist nor for the opposite parties No. 2 t:o 8, but the learned A. G. A. was present for the State. I, therefore, heard the learned A. G. A. and after perusal of the record I dismissed the revision on merits holding that the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge granting liberty to the Magistrate to treat the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. as a complaint was justified., and required no interference by this Court] and the revision was therefore, dismissed.;