IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln C482 No. 520 of 2010 Anubhav Gupta S/O Sharavan Kumar Gupta R/O Gauri Shankar ki Haweli, Vishnu Ghat, Haridwar P.S Kotwali, Haridwar, District Haridwar. ………. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun ………..Respondents Shri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate present for the petitioner Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 03.05.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 438 of 2009, whereby the order dated 30th of October 2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application no. 172 of 2009 moved under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., is affirmed. 2 (3) The petitioner moved an application before the Magistrate under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., praying that the police be directed to the register the case. The allegation made in the application were for the three cheques of the cheque book of the petitioner were got lost. After obtaining the report from the police station, and hearing the petitioner, the Magistrate dismissed the application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., on the ground no offense is disclosed. The revisional court has also affirmed the order after hearing the petitioner/revisionist. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have erred in law in rejecting the application of the petitioner under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the ground mentioned in the impugned order are not sufficient to reject the application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order, this court is of the view that the jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C is not a appellate jurisdiction to look into the factual aspects of the matter. It is settled principle of law that the Magistrate while passing the order under 3 section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C is not required to act like a post office and it has to apply its mind before allowing or rejecting the application. In the present case the Magistrate has applied his mind and given opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not a fit case in which the police was required to be directed to register the case. (6) For the reasons as discussed above the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.09.6.2010 N.P