Smt. Durga Devi v. Party

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 to 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, in Case No.145 of 2019 (Smt. Durga Devi Vs. Satya Prakash Keshri and others) whereby the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that revisionist is a poor lady, belonging to Scheduled Caste category and running a fruit stall (phal ki dukaan) at Kila Ramnagar Chowk. It is alleged that on 07.10.2019 at about 9–10 p.m., the opposite parties along with 3–4 unknown persons came to her shop and assaulted her with lathi, danda, kicks and fists, dragged her and touched her private parts with ill intention. The revisionist sustained injuries in the said incident and was medically examined on 9.10.2019. It was further alleged that they used caste-related words and threatened to kill her. It is further submitted that after her medical examination, the revisionist immediately approached concerned Police Station for lodging the First Information Report, but no FIR was registered by the police. Thereafter, she moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, but no action was taken by the authorities concerned. Thereafter revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge 2 CRLR No. 2097 of 2020 (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, seeking a direction for registration of the FIR. However, the learned Special Judge committed manifest illegality and material irregularity in rejecting the said application in an arbitrary and mechanical manner, without considering the material available on record. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 submit that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected by the learned Special Judge. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which may call for any interference by this Court, thus no case is made out for interference by this Court.

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

6. Law regarding jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is well settled. Power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by Magistrate judicially on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. If application does not indicate that any evidence is required to be collected and preserved and applicant is familiar with names of accused persons and witnesses then in such a case, no investigation by police is required. Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. containing allegation of commission of a cognizance offence is no more a 'res-integra', as this controversy has been settled by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 739. In the case of Smt. Masuman vs. State of U.P. & others 2007 (1) ALJ 221 and some other cases, the single judges of the Court have taken a view that if the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of a prima-facie cognizable offence, then it is obligatory for the magistrate to direct investigation after registration of the FIR on the basis of that application. Disagreeing with this view, the following question was referred to the larger Bench for decision in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra). "Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order on each and every application 3 CRLR No. 2097 of 2020 under section 156(3)Cr.P.C. containing allegations of commission of a cognizable offence for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police even if those allegations, prima-facie, do not appear to be genuine and do not appeal to reason, or he can exercise judicial discretion in the matter and can pass order for treating it as 'complaint' or to reject it in suitable cases"?

7. After having considered the full Bench decision of the Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 and many other cases, the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (Supra) has answered the question as under:- "The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner 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. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. The second leg of the reference is also answered in the manner that the Magistrate has a discretion to treat an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint."

8. Thus, it is apparent that Magistrate is not bound to pass order of investigation by police, even if such application discloses cognizable offence. The Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information 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. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application.

9. From the facts of the case revisionist is a lady, belonging to Scheduled Caste category and running a fruit stall at Kila Ramnagar Chowk. It is alleged that on 07.10.2019 at about 9–10 p.m., the opposite parties along with 3–4 unknown persons came to her shop and assaulted her with lathi, danda, kicks and fists and touched her body in bad manner and used caste-related words and threatened to kill her. From the perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the materials placed on record, it appears that the dispute primarily relates to the obstruction caused by the revisionist on the road. The trial court has passed the 4 CRLR No. 2097 of 2020 detailed order that the allegations of assault and caste-based abuse were found to be untrue and not supported by any credible evidence.

10. In view of above, there appears no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order and the same has rightly been passed by the court concerned after considering the entire material available on record. Moreover, the revisionist has failed to show any illegality or perversity in the order impugned, as such, no case is made out for interference. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

11. The present criminal revision is dismissed accordingly. October 16, 2025 Md Faisal (Chawan Prakash,J.) MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 to 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, in Case No.145 of 2019 (Smt. Durga Devi Vs. Satya Prakash Keshri and others) whereby the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that revisionist is a poor lady, belonging to Scheduled Caste category and running a fruit stall (phal ki dukaan) at Kila Ramnagar Chowk. It is alleged that on 07.10.2019 at about 9–10 p.m., the opposite parties along with 3–4 unknown persons came to her shop and assaulted her with lathi, danda, kicks and fists, dragged her and touched her private parts with ill intention. The revisionist sustained injuries in the said incident and was medically examined on 9.10.2019. It was further alleged that they used caste-related words and threatened to kill her. It is further submitted that after her medical examination, the revisionist immediately approached concerned Police Station for lodging the First Information Report, but no FIR was registered by the police. Thereafter, she moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, but no action was taken by the authorities concerned. Thereafter revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge 2 CRLR No. 2097 of 2020 (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, seeking a direction for registration of the FIR. However, the learned Special Judge committed manifest illegality and material irregularity in rejecting the said application in an arbitrary and mechanical manner, without considering the material available on record. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 submit that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected by the learned Special Judge. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which may call for any interference by this Court, thus no case is made out for interference by this Court.

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

6. Law regarding jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is well settled. Power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by Magistrate judicially on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. If application does not indicate that any evidence is required to be collected and preserved and applicant is familiar with names of accused persons and witnesses then in such a case, no investigation by police is required. Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. containing allegation of commission of a cognizance offence is no more a 'res-integra', as this controversy has been settled by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 739. In the case of Smt. Masuman vs. State of U.P. & others 2007 (1) ALJ 221 and some other cases, the single judges of the Court have taken a view that if the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of a prima-facie cognizable offence, then it is obligatory for the magistrate to direct investigation after registration of the FIR on the basis of that application. Disagreeing with this view, the following question was referred to the larger Bench for decision in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra). "Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order on each and every application 3 CRLR No. 2097 of 2020 under section 156(3)Cr.P.C. containing allegations of commission of a cognizable offence for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police even if those allegations, prima-facie, do not appear to be genuine and do not appeal to reason, or he can exercise judicial discretion in the matter and can pass order for treating it as 'complaint' or to reject it in suitable cases"?

7. After having considered the full Bench decision of the Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 and many other cases, the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (Supra) has answered the question as under:- "The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner 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. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. The second leg of the reference is also answered in the manner that the Magistrate has a discretion to treat an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint."

8. Thus, it is apparent that Magistrate is not bound to pass order of investigation by police, even if such application discloses cognizable offence. The Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information 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. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application.

9. From the facts of the case revisionist is a lady, belonging to Scheduled Caste category and running a fruit stall at Kila Ramnagar Chowk. It is alleged that on 07.10.2019 at about 9–10 p.m., the opposite parties along with 3–4 unknown persons came to her shop and assaulted her with lathi, danda, kicks and fists and touched her body in bad manner and used caste-related words and threatened to kill her. From the perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the materials placed on record, it appears that the dispute primarily relates to the obstruction caused by the revisionist on the road. The trial court has passed the 4 CRLR No. 2097 of 2020 detailed order that the allegations of assault and caste-based abuse were found to be untrue and not supported by any credible evidence.

10. In view of above, there appears no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order and the same has rightly been passed by the court concerned after considering the entire material available on record. Moreover, the revisionist has failed to show any illegality or perversity in the order impugned, as such, no case is made out for interference. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

11. The present criminal revision is dismissed accordingly. October 16, 2025 Md Faisal (Chawan Prakash,J.) MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad