- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is a revision filed against the order dated 26-4-2006 passed by then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh on the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. bearing case No. 64/11/2006 moved by the Revisionist against opposite parties No. 2 to 5.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the applicant revisionist moved the above application under Section 156 (3), Cr. PC. against the accused opposite parties No. 2 to 5 with the allegations that on 13-5-2003 at about 12 o'clock the accused Khubi Singh had beaten his son in the jungle and the report of that incident had been lodged by him, and the injuries of his son were also medically examined on 14-5-2006 at the PHC, Khair. THEre is a gang of Khubi Singh, Man Singh, Nepal Singh and Rameshwar S/o Gopal accused oppo-site parties No. 2 to 5, and they have inimical terms with the applicant Rameshwar. THE applicant's father Har Prasad was allotted a plot of 200 sq. yards in the land of Gram Samaj bearing Gata No. 1025. Har Prasad constructed his house thereon about 40-45 years ago. Man Singh etc. with a view to damage the complainant got notices issued to him from the office of the Tehsildar in respect of the land. On 28-1-2006 at about 7:30 to 8:00 a. m. Man Singh, Khubi Singh, Nepal Singh and Rameshwar were doing mar-peer with Yad Ram, Pope Singh, Vijay Pal, and Raj Pal in front of the house of Raj Pal. Man Singh and Khubi Singh had pistols, Nepal Singh had a lathi and Rameshwar had an iron rod with him. THE complainant's son Kallu rushed towards the spot on hearing noise and the complainant's wife Munni Devi followed him. THE complainants minor son also reached there and some other persons named Pappu, Sheo Charan and the complainant also reached there. Man Singh stated that Kallu should be killed. Khubi Ram supported him. THEn Man Singh and Khubi Ram fired at Kallu from the pistols in their hands. Consequently, Kallu received fire arm injuries and fell down. Rinkoo also received some pellets in the incident. THE applicant Rameshwar and his wife took Kallu to the Medical College, Aligarh, where the doctors told that he had already died. THEreafter, the applicant Rameshwar came to know that Man Singh in collusion with the police at police station Khair had lodged a false report at the police station on 28-1-2006 in his defence. When the complainant went to the police station to lodge his report on 29-1 -2006 it was not written. THEn he filed an appli cation to the S. S. R, Aligarh on 31-1-2006 but no action was taken. On the other hand, the police of P. S. Khair came to his house on 20-2-2006 and threatened his son Kamal Singh that he should not say even a single word against Man Singh etc. THE complainant sent intimation of this incident to the S. S. P. on 21-2-2006, and also narrated this incident to the S. S. P. personally. Even then his report was not lodged. THEn on 7-3-2006 he moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. PC. the Court called for a report from the police station and several dates were fixed, and ultimately 12-4-2006 was fixed. On that date, curfew was imposed in the city, and so the Courts were closed. THE Courts re-opened on 15-4- 2006, and the date 20-4-2006 was fixed in that case. However, the complainant could not get infor mation of that date, and so the above application was rejected in his absence THEn he moved the present application for the same purpose on 25-4-2006. The above application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh vide his order dated 26-4- 2006 in which he mentioned that a report had already " been lodged in respect of the impugned incident and the police was doing inves tigation on that report. The statement of the independent witness Rinkoo had been recorded under Section 164, Cr. PC. The application of the accused Yad Ram moved earlier for the same relief had been rejected on 13-3- 2006, and since the First Information Report had already been registered in this case and the matter was under investigation, there was no necessity for registration of a fresh case and so the application was rejected. Aggrieved with that order complainant Rameshwar has filed this revision. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A for the State.
(3.) SINCE there is no provision for issuing notice to the accused prior to passing of the summoning order, no notice was issued to the accused opposite par ties No. 2 to 5 in this revision. The learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the revisionist mainly on the ground that the First Information Report had already been registered on the report of Man Singh against Yadram, Bhup Singh, Vijay Pal and Raj Pal regis tered as case crime No. 22 of 2006 under Section 307 and 506, IPC. at the police station and since charge under Section 302, I. PC. had also been added in the case after death of Kallu, there was no question of registering two First Informa tion Reports of that very incident. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the above finding of the learned Magistrate is erroneous. He con ceded that a second First Information Report of the same incident from the same informant or his associate is barred but contended that this bar is not applicable two rival parties have come with two cross versions of the incident. He submitted that in this incident the complainant's son Kallu had died as a result of fire arm injury caused to him by Mao Singh and Khubi Ram, and since the condition of Kallu was serious the complainant and his wife immediately took him to the Medical College, Aligarh for treatment instead of going to the police station first to lodge F. I. R. , but Kallu died, and thereafter they remained present with the dead body for preparation of inquest report, and post- mortem of the dead body, and in the meantime, Man Singh who had actually fired at Kallu resulting into his death, availing absence of the complainant from the spot, in collusion with the police of P. S. Khair, lodged a false report of the incident alleging therein that Pope Singh who was a member of the party of the complainant Rameshwar fired at Man Singh but that fire instead of hitting Man Singh hit Kallu and Rinkoo, result ing into Kallu's death. He submitted that the correct facts are that Man Singh and Khubi Ram had fired at Kallu resulting into his death, and since both these par ties had come with their cross versions in respect of the same incident, the proper course for the Magistrate was to pass an order for registration of the report of the revisionist as a cross case and orders should have been passed for inves tigation of both the cases by the Police.;