Pratibha Singh v. Jyoti Singh and Another), whereby the application filed by the
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177068 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22313 of 2024 Applicant :- Pratibha Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Singh,Rajat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 19.10.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in Case No. 587 of 2022 (Pratibha Singh vs. Jyoti Singh and Another), whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section - 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The order dated 01.05.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2022 (Pratibha Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others), is also being impugned, whereby the revision filed by the applicant has been dismissed.
Legal Reasoning
Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P., reported in 2007 (59) ACC 739, it is clear that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate and he may or may not allow the application in his discretion and that the Magistrate has a discretion to treat an application under section - 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. The Magistrate is not bound to pass order of investigation by police in each and every cases, even if such application discloses cognizable offence but the Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by applicant had any substance or not. 7. In case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2015 AIR(SC)1758, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same." 8. Thus, dealing with application under Section - 156(3) Cr.P.C., Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information report sought to be lodged by the applicant had any substance or not. If the allegations made in the application under section - 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima-facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. However, such jurisdiction cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Magistrate has to consider the nature of allegations. Merely because Magistrate has jurisdiction to reject an application under Section - 156(3) Cr.P.C., it does not mean that he can reject an application under Section - 156(3) Cr.P.C. in a mechanical way without considering the facts and nature of allegations. It is also settled that in appropriate case according to facts and nature of the offences alleged to have been committed, the Magistrate can decline to direct investigation and in such cases the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint, as held by the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi (supra). 9. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that the application filed by applicant under Section - 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 19.10.2022. The applicant has preferred a revision against that order, which has been dismissed by Session Judge vide order dated 01.05.2024. It is well settled that once a revision is dismissed against an order, this Court cannot act as second Revisional Court under garb of exercising inherent powers under Section - 482 Cr.P.C.. In such circumstances, the interference can be made by this Court only if there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of Court or the required statutory procedure has not been followed with or there is failure of justice. 10. In the instant matter, the applicant has inter-alia alleged in her application under Section - 156(3) Cr.P.C. that her husband has performed second marriage with one Jyoti Singh (opposite party no.2) illegally and she has misused the credit cards of her husband and that on 22.04.2022 her husband was thrown from roof and he died of injuries. There is no specific allegation against opposite party nos.3 to 6, who were also arrayed as accused. After incident, postmortem of deceased was conducted and at that time no complaint was made. Learned Magistrate has observed that dispute was regarding funds left by deceased and that deceased has suffered injuries accidentally. The Revisional Court has considered facts of the matter in detail and dismissed the revision. No patent illegality or abuse of the process could be shown in respect of the impugned orders. The present application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 11. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 12.11.2024 S Rawat
Arguments
3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that both the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. Applicant is wife of Late. Arun Kumar Singh, who died in suspicious condition on 22.04.2022, allegedly by falling from roof. Several injuries were found on the body of deceased in postmortem report. After incident, applicant has tried to get register the first information report against private opposite parties but the police did not register the first information report. Thereafter, applicant has filed an application under Section - 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2022 without considering facts and law. The applicant has preferred criminal revision against the order dated 19.10.2022, which has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 01.05.2024. It was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the investigation of the matter is necessary as the husband of applicant has died of injuries in suspicious condition but the courts below have failed to appreciate the facts and law in correct perspective and thus, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It may be stated that from the law laid down by a Division