Dhaval Singh v. Party

registration of FIR and rejecting the said application.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage of the revisionist’s daughter was fixed with opposite party no.2, Paritosh @ Golu, and both the families had mutually agreed that the marriage would be solemnized in the near future. However, after the “God Bharai” 2 CRLR No. 3373 of 2021 ceremony was performed on 22.03.2021, the opposite parties started demanding a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash along with certain other articles as dowry. The revisionist was shocked and deeply disturbed upon hearing such unreasonable and unlawful demands. He expressed his inability to fulfil those demands as he belongs to a middle-class family, but despite his requests and repeated efforts to convince them, the opposite parties did not consider his financial condition and broke the proposed marriage. He further submitted that such conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to cheating, criminal intimidation, and dowry demand, which are cognizable in nature, yet the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate these facts while rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was prayed that the impugned order dated

28.10.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate may kindly be set aside, and a direction be issued to the police concerned to register the FIR and investigate the matter.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the revision and supported the impugned order. He submits that this revision is misconceived and has been filed only to harass the opposite parties. The dispute raised by the revisionist relates to matrimonial negotiation, which did not culminate into marriage, and as such, it does not constitute any cognizable offence. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which may call for any interference by this Court, thus the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

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

8. 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 3 CRLR No. 3373 of 2021 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 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"?

9. 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. 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."

10. 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 4 CRLR No. 3373 of 2021 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. Even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 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 vs. State of U.P. (supra).

11. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that during the negotiation of marriage between the parties, it appears that the opposite parties allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and certain other articles from the revisionist. However, as the revisionist expressed his inability to meet such demands, the proposed marriage could not be solemnized. It is also evident from the record that no transaction of money or exchange of articles ever took place between the parties, and therefore, the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any cognizable offence warranting police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that the dispute primarily arises out of a failed matrimonial negotiation and not from any concluded marriage or actual exchange of dowry. Hence, the demand alleged during the negotiation stage, without any consummated marriage, does not attract criminal liability.

12. This Court finds support from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287, wherein the Supreme Court has held that: "The power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really aggrieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power, but 5 CRLR No. 3373 of 2021 when pervert litigations take this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same."

13. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate committed no illegality in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The impugned order is well reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and law. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned order dated 28.10.2021 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.

14. Accordingly, the present revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. October 9, 2025 Md Faisal (Chawan Prakash,J.) MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

registration of FIR and rejecting the said application.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage of the revisionist’s daughter was fixed with opposite party no.2, Paritosh @ Golu, and both the families had mutually agreed that the marriage would be solemnized in the near future. However, after the “God Bharai” 2 CRLR No. 3373 of 2021 ceremony was performed on 22.03.2021, the opposite parties started demanding a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash along with certain other articles as dowry. The revisionist was shocked and deeply disturbed upon hearing such unreasonable and unlawful demands. He expressed his inability to fulfil those demands as he belongs to a middle-class family, but despite his requests and repeated efforts to convince them, the opposite parties did not consider his financial condition and broke the proposed marriage. He further submitted that such conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to cheating, criminal intimidation, and dowry demand, which are cognizable in nature, yet the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate these facts while rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was prayed that the impugned order dated

28.10.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate may kindly be set aside, and a direction be issued to the police concerned to register the FIR and investigate the matter.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the revision and supported the impugned order. He submits that this revision is misconceived and has been filed only to harass the opposite parties. The dispute raised by the revisionist relates to matrimonial negotiation, which did not culminate into marriage, and as such, it does not constitute any cognizable offence. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which may call for any interference by this Court, thus the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

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

8. 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 3 CRLR No. 3373 of 2021 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 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"?

9. 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. 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."

10. 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 4 CRLR No. 3373 of 2021 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. Even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 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 vs. State of U.P. (supra).

11. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that during the negotiation of marriage between the parties, it appears that the opposite parties allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and certain other articles from the revisionist. However, as the revisionist expressed his inability to meet such demands, the proposed marriage could not be solemnized. It is also evident from the record that no transaction of money or exchange of articles ever took place between the parties, and therefore, the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any cognizable offence warranting police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that the dispute primarily arises out of a failed matrimonial negotiation and not from any concluded marriage or actual exchange of dowry. Hence, the demand alleged during the negotiation stage, without any consummated marriage, does not attract criminal liability.

12. This Court finds support from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287, wherein the Supreme Court has held that: "The power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really aggrieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power, but 5 CRLR No. 3373 of 2021 when pervert litigations take this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same."

13. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate committed no illegality in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The impugned order is well reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and law. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned order dated 28.10.2021 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.

14. Accordingly, the present revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. October 9, 2025 Md Faisal (Chawan Prakash,J.) MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad