IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2010 Ranjeet Singh Bisht & another ` …….Revisionists. Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ……Respondents. Mr. Pankaj Purihit, Advocate for the revisionists. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsels for the revisionists as well as the respondents. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 9.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Criminal Revision No. 11/2010 Sidhi Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others allowing the revision filed by respondent no. 2 and dismissing the order dated 17.8.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli in Misc. Criminal Case No. 23 of 2009 Sidhi Lal Vs. Ranjeet Singh and others whereby the application moved by respondent no. 2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected. Brief facts of the case are that an application was moved by respondent no. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was rejected vide order dated 17.8.2009 on the ground that there was a land dispute between the parties and the dispute was primarily a civil dispute in nature and no offence is made out against the revisionists in the present case. Against the said order dated 17.8.2009 a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Chamoli. The case made out before the Sessions Judge, Chamoli was that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli was wrong while dismissing the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. because once such an application has been moved the only recourse for the Chief Judicial Magistrate was either to call for an investigation and in case he feels that it is not a case fit enough for calling an 2 investigation then he has to treat the application moved under Section 156 (3) as a complaint and proceed accordingly. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli has not adopted the correct procedure of law and rejected the application submitted under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On this legal position, the Sessions Judge, Chamoli has allowed the revision filed by respondent no. 2 and set aside the order dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli and directed the court below to proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate order therein. This Court finds that the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli is perfectly in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the various case laws on the matter, namely, Mangalsen Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2010 Crl. L.J. (NOC) 139 (All.); Bal Dev Thakural & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. 2005 UAD 705 Uttaranchal High Court and Madhu Bala Vs. Suresh Kumar and others 1997 AIR SCW 3146. Since the only option for the Chief Judicial Magistrate was either to direct the police concerned for registration and investigation of the case and in case he feels that it is not a case fit enough to call for an investigation then the application should have been treated as complaint and only thereafter if he found that there was no offence to proceed against the accused, he would have dismissed the application under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. This procedure has not been adopted by the Magistrate concerned who has straightway rejected the application primarily on two grounds : (A) that the case is purely of civil nature and (B) that the available police record do not verify that there is a complaint against the accused. Police report must reveal as to the offence being committed. It should not merely state that no such incident has been reported. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the Sessions Judge, Chamoli has rightly allowed the revision filed against the order dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli being erroneous. This Court does not find any fault with the order 3 dated 9.8.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2010. The present Criminal Revision has, therefore, no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli dated 9.8.2010 in Criminal Revision No. 11/2010 is affirmed. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.8.2010 Avneet