JAYASHREE TIWARI,J. - (1.) THE present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 2.11.2001 passed by the Judge Magistrate, Court No. 18, Jaunpur whereby he has held that in pursuance of the order given by the revisional court dated 14.8.2001 that offence under Section 325 IPC is not made out? and on that basis, he has held that only offence under Section 323 and 504 IPC appear to have been made out from the prima facie statement made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on that basis, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the Magistrate.
(2.) IN the scheme of Cr.P.C. under Section 156(3), it is provided that the clause 3 any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. This sub clause is to be read in connection with Section 156 Cr.P.C. itself which lays down that police officials have power to investigate a cognizable case. The crux of the provision as annunciated? in sub clause 3 of Section 156 Cr.P.C. and as has been constantly held by the superior courts is that if from the contentions and averments made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the commission of a cognizable case is made out, in that case the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction over the concerned police station may direct the police to register and investigate the case. The revisional court vide its order dated 18.10.2001 has allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and has directed the Magistrate to consider all the points discussed in body of the revision judgment and then to pass a judicial order in consonance with law.? The learned revisional court has discussed about the nature of injuries, instruments used and other matters. The learned lower court instead of following mandate of the revisional court which was to consider all the points mentioned in the body of the revision judgment has held that revisional court has directed that offence under Section 325 is not made out and straightway rejected the contention under Section 325 IPC but order of revisional court does not say so, the order of revisional court is apparently clear. It has directed the learned Magistrate to re-consider the points as have been discussed in the body of the judgment and to make his own discussions and re-consideration of the application by application of his judicial mind and then to pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. Hence the order dated 2.11.2001 suffers from non application of judicial mind as directed by the revisional court's order dated 18.10.2001.
(3.) IN the circumstances, the revision is liable to be allowed, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dated 2.11.2001 is hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to hear and peruse the contentions and averments made in the application under Section 156 Cr.P.C. and then to apply his judicial mind while considering the points as pointed out by the revisional court in the body of the judgment and then to pass a well reasoned and speaking order in consonance with law.;