AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 159 wordsD.C. Srivastava, J.—Heard learned Counsel for revisionist and perused the impugned order. The revision can be decided finally at this stage.
An application u/s 156(3) was moved by the complainant and upon that application and after considering the papers, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order directing the police to register a case against the revisionist and investigate. The contention is that in view of the provisions contained u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct the police for registering the case and utmost he can direct investigation of the case. It is, therefore, contended that the order suffers from jurisdictional error. However, this contention cannot be accepted, in view of the pronouncement of Division Bench of this Court in Surajmal v. State. 1993 ACC 81, wherein it has been held that the Magistrate is competent to issue direction for registration of the case also. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.