Sita Ram Katiyar v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
Court No. - 87 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4626 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sita Ram Katiyar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siya Ram Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Legal Reasoning
"When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay the complainant before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate, after recording evidence, finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and could issue process to the accused." Similarly in case of Minu Kumar and another Vs State of Bihar and others, (2006) 4 SCC 359, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "When the information is laid with the Police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Reg.) through its President v. Union of India and others (1996 (11) SCC 582). It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained." In the light of above pronouncements, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed any illegality by rejecting the application of the petitioner for registration of the FIR. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor is there any abuse of the courts' process. Hence, no interference is called for by this Court in the present case. The perusal of the order passed by the lower court also does not reflect any such infirmity or illegality which may vindicate any interference in the same by this Court. The writ petition devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
Arguments
Heard Mr. Siya Ram Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, prying for following relief: i). To set aside the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.21, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal revision No.132 of 2020 (Sita Ram Katiyar vs. State of U.P. and 9 others) under Sections 397 Cr.P.C. dismissing the revision and affirming the order of learned court below dated 12.08.2020 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No.12860 of 2020, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by which the learned Magistrate has treated the application as compliant case. ii). To direct the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to direct the concerned police authorities police station Barra to register the first information report against the accused persons respondent nos.2 to 10 and investigate the matter and submit report under Section 173 (2) Cr.PC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below has committed manifest error of law while passing the impugned order in a cryptic manner. The learned Magistrate has misused his powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and has refused to direct the registration of the FIR against the accused persons, though a cognizable offence was disclosed against the opposite party nos.2 to 10 which requires the police investigation. He has further submitted that the revisional court has also committed manifest error while affirming the order of learned Magistrate. The trial court without giving any finding, rejected the application under Section 156 (3) as well as revision filed by revisionist, which is illegal, arbitrary and the same are liable to be set aside. Learned AGA, on the other hand, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is inconsonance with the law, hence, there is no illegality in the said order. The revisional court has also rightly passed the impugned order, which too requires no interference. Hon'ble Apex Count in Aleeque Padamsee Vs Union of India and another (2007) 6 ACC 171 has held that if any person is aggrieved by inaction of police official in registering the FIR the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. should be adopted and it has further held that writ petition in such cases should not be entertained. The relevant extract of the judgement are reproduced as under:-
Decision
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. After passing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the court below may be directed to decide the complaint case expeditiously as possible. Considering the submissions advanced, the court below is directed to decide the aforementioned complaint case expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 4.4.2022 Ajeet Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.04.04 14:55:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad