- (1.) This is a revision against the order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 959 of 2005, Ram Singh Vishwakarma v. Phool Chandra and Ors.
(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the revisionist had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar with the allegation that he has got a general merchandise shop at mohalla Mavaiya. The accused, who have been arrayed as opposite parties No. 2 to 8 in this revision, used to purchase goods on credit from his shop and they had taken goods worth Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- on credit. The accused did not make payment of the above amount. On 2.11.2005 the accused came to his shop at about 1 P.M. and asked his son Rakesh and wife to supply goods and when they refused to do so, they damaged the goods kept in the shop, looted Rs. 5,000/- from cash box, abused his wife and daughter-in-law and took Rakesh with them. Rakesh is untraceable since that date. The revisionist went to the police outpost Ahirwa but the police instead of taking any action against the accused persons, detained him and his other sons Shailesh & Vikas and asked him to come with Rs. 20,000/-, failing which they and their entire family members would be detained in the case of rape and f atrocities to scheduled castes members. Rakesh is untraceable, since 2.11.05. It was suspected that the accused after his abduction had killed him. He gave its information at the police station Chakeri on 5.11.2005, but no action was taken. Then he filed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court. On this application the Magistrate called for a report from the police station and the police reported that Rakesh was involved in a case of rape against Kumari Jugnu, daughter of Ram Shanker and on the application of Km. Jugnu under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., an order had been passed for registration of the case, and the police after investigation of the case has submitted a charge sheet against Rakesh under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the S.C./S.T. Act in respect of the incident of rape which had allegedly taken place on 2.11.2005. The learned Magistrate observed that the applicant wanted to get a cross case of that incident of rape registered, but there did not appear any cognizable offence and so he rejected the application. Aggrieved with that order, the complainant Ram Singh Vishwakarma has filed this revision.
(3.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.;