Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav v. Ashok Kumar Gupta and Others), Police Station
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:193319 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24129 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav 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 17.03.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District - Ghazipur in Criminal Case No.2235 of 2022 (Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta and Others), Police Station - Nonhara, District - Ghazipur, whereby the application filed by applicant under Section - 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed, as well as against order dated 16.12.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, whereby criminal revision against order dated 17.03.2023 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 17.03.2023. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against that order, which has been dismissed by Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 16.12.2023. 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, perusal of record shows that applicant has filed an application under Section - 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against opposite party no.2 to 7 making allegation that all the opposite parties have abused and assaulted him. Opposite party no.4 Shubham @ Shalu Gupta has snatched chain and opposite party no.2 Ashok Kumar Gupta has robbed Rs. 2,500/- from complainant. It appears that opposite party no.4 is son of opposite party no.2. The application of applicant has been registered as complaint case. The revision against order dated 17.03.2023 has already been dismissed. No such patent illegality or abuse of the process of Court could be shown in the impugned orders, so as to require interference by this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. 12. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 10.12.2024 S Rawat
Arguments
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has filed an application under Section - 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against opposite party no.2 to 7 making several allegations that they have assaulted the applicant and committed robbery. In the said incident, the applicant has sustained several injuries. There were allegations of assault and robbery and thus, matter required investigation by the police but the application of applicant under Section - 156 (3) has been registered as a complaint case vide order dated 17.03.2023. Applicant has preferred a criminal revision against order dated 17.03.2023, which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.12.2023. It was submitted that both the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus, 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