AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.K. Rathi, J.—The revisionist moved an application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. for direction to the police to register a case for offences under Sections 394, 504 and 506 against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 and to investigate the matter under the aforesaid section. The aforesaid application was rejected by the impugned order dated 6.4.1999, passed by the Special Judge, (D.A.A.), Etah. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.
I have heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.
It is contended that the police submitted report that the applicant himself demolished the shop, which were under construction and have moved the application to harass the opposite parties.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that learned Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah, has erred in accepting the report of the police.
I agree with the contention. The purpose of the report from police is whether any case in respect of the subject matter has been registered at the police station or not. The report of the police regarding the merit of the application is not material.
Accordingly the impugned order, dated 6.4.1999, passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah, is set aside. The matter is sent back to the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah, to consider the matter afresh.
With the above direction the revision is finally disposed of.