Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused record. None responded for the opposite party No. 2 despite notice.
(2.) THE revisionist Smt. Chandrawati has preferred this revision against the order dated 18.6.2008 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2008 whereby the learned Sessions Judge quashed the order dated 14.8.2007, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12, Barabanki, consequently the revisionist's application under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure stood rejected. It may be mentioned that the revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate concerned with the allegations that the accused persons named in the application put the revisionist's chappar on fire and hurled abuses and insulted to the revisionist merely because she belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The learned Magistrate, before whom the application was moved, considered the matter and passed the order dated 14.8.2007 directing the police concerned to register and investigate the case. The learned Magistrate recorded a categorical finding that the facts stated in the application, disclosed commission of cognizable offences. The learned Sessions Judge reversed the order of the Magistrate on the ground that no compliance of Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure was made by the revisionist. But, however, the learned Sessions Judge was also of the view that the exercise of judicial discretion by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) arises only when the application discloses commission of any cognizable offence.
(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge further held that the learned Magistrate had not applied his mind at all and had not disclosed any reason while passing the order dated 14.8.2007. If it was so, the learned Sessions Judge should have directed the Magistrate concerned to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate order.;