Ram Prakash Mishra v. Deepak Mishra and another), wherein the revisionist categorically stated that Dee

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Ravat, Advocate had filed vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3. It transpires from the order sheet that on earlier occasions Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 were granted time for filing counter affidavit in this matter but till date, they have not filed counter affidavit.

3. Today, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Ravat, learned counsel for Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 is not present before this Court even in the revised call of the cases therefore, this revision is being decided in his absence.

4. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 22.9.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge ( Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge ( Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai which was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 155 of 2022 ( Ram Prakash Mishra Vs. Deepak Mishra and another), wherein the revisionist categorically stated that Deepak Mishra and Jagdish Mishra entered in his house on 25.9.2022 at about 9.00 p.m. and started abusing him. The Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 also beaten the revisionist and extended threat of life for the reason that they wanted to grab the revisionist's property. The revisionist informed the police by dialing No. 112 ( Complaint No. 25092212195) and on his complaint the police came on the spot. Since the revisionist's FIR was not registered by the concerned police station and he was not sent for medical examination, he on his own went to the District Male Hospital Orai where he was examined by the doctor and provisional diagnosis has been written as injuries on neck, shoulder and back.

6. The revisionist in his application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has annexed the aforesaid prescription of the District Male Hospital, Orai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while entertaining the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directed the police station concerned to submit its report and in response thereof, the police station concerned submitted a report on 27.11.2022 wherein it has been categorically stated that Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 consume alcohol on routine basis and they keep on teasing the revisionist with the intention to grab his property.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that once there was categorical evidence in respect of the injuries suffered by the revisionist and further there was report of the concerned police station stating therein that Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 are in habit of teasing the revisionist with the intention to grab his property, there could not have been any occasion for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to reject the revisionist's application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State though has tried to defend the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but could not give any explanation, as to why the categorical report given by the concerned police station and the prescription of the District Male Hospital, Orai have not been taken into account while passing the order on the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

9. Since the learned counsel for Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 is not present, even in the revised call of the cases and no counter affidavit has been filed, this Court has no option except to proceed to here and decide this matter in his absence.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the revisionist's application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected vide impugned order dated 22.9.2023 wherein it has been stated that the concerned police station has submitted its report mentioning therein that since the revisionist was called upon in the police station in respect of Case Crime No. 72 of 2022 therefore, he felt humiliation and as a counterblast he has filed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

11. The police report submitted by the concerned police station on 27.11.2022 has been brought on record by the revisionist wherein no discussion about Case Crime No. 72 of 2022 finds place. On the contrary, police report dated 27.11.2022 states that Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 are in habit of using alcohol and also keep on teasing the revisionist with the intention to grab his property.

12. This Court takes note of the fact that in the impugned order dated 22.9.2023, the court had said that the revisionist has not been medically examined whereas the revisionist has brought on record the medical prescription dated 22.9.2022 issued by the District Male Hospital, Orai wherein provisional diagnosis has been shown as injuries on neck, shoulder and back.

13. This Court is of the view that the police report submitted by the concerned police station on 27.11.2022 and the medical prescription dated 22.9.2022 have completely been ignored by the court while deciding the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. This Court further is of the view that the matter needs to be remanded to the court concerned for consideration of the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. afresh.

14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision is allowed. The order dated 22.9.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge ( Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge ( Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai for consideration and deciding the Criminal Misc. Application No. 155 of 2022 ( Ram Prakash Mishra Vs. Deepak Mishra and another) afresh, keeping in view the observations made in this order. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Gss GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Ravat, Advocate had filed vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3. It transpires from the order sheet that on earlier occasions Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 were granted time for filing counter affidavit in this matter but till date, they have not filed counter affidavit.

3. Today, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Ravat, learned counsel for Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 is not present before this Court even in the revised call of the cases therefore, this revision is being decided in his absence.

4. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 22.9.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge ( Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge ( Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai which was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 155 of 2022 ( Ram Prakash Mishra Vs. Deepak Mishra and another), wherein the revisionist categorically stated that Deepak Mishra and Jagdish Mishra entered in his house on 25.9.2022 at about 9.00 p.m. and started abusing him. The Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 also beaten the revisionist and extended threat of life for the reason that they wanted to grab the revisionist's property. The revisionist informed the police by dialing No. 112 ( Complaint No. 25092212195) and on his complaint the police came on the spot. Since the revisionist's FIR was not registered by the concerned police station and he was not sent for medical examination, he on his own went to the District Male Hospital Orai where he was examined by the doctor and provisional diagnosis has been written as injuries on neck, shoulder and back.

6. The revisionist in his application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has annexed the aforesaid prescription of the District Male Hospital, Orai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while entertaining the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directed the police station concerned to submit its report and in response thereof, the police station concerned submitted a report on 27.11.2022 wherein it has been categorically stated that Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 consume alcohol on routine basis and they keep on teasing the revisionist with the intention to grab his property.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that once there was categorical evidence in respect of the injuries suffered by the revisionist and further there was report of the concerned police station stating therein that Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 are in habit of teasing the revisionist with the intention to grab his property, there could not have been any occasion for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to reject the revisionist's application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State though has tried to defend the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but could not give any explanation, as to why the categorical report given by the concerned police station and the prescription of the District Male Hospital, Orai have not been taken into account while passing the order on the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

9. Since the learned counsel for Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 is not present, even in the revised call of the cases and no counter affidavit has been filed, this Court has no option except to proceed to here and decide this matter in his absence.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the revisionist's application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected vide impugned order dated 22.9.2023 wherein it has been stated that the concerned police station has submitted its report mentioning therein that since the revisionist was called upon in the police station in respect of Case Crime No. 72 of 2022 therefore, he felt humiliation and as a counterblast he has filed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

11. The police report submitted by the concerned police station on 27.11.2022 has been brought on record by the revisionist wherein no discussion about Case Crime No. 72 of 2022 finds place. On the contrary, police report dated 27.11.2022 states that Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 are in habit of using alcohol and also keep on teasing the revisionist with the intention to grab his property.

12. This Court takes note of the fact that in the impugned order dated 22.9.2023, the court had said that the revisionist has not been medically examined whereas the revisionist has brought on record the medical prescription dated 22.9.2022 issued by the District Male Hospital, Orai wherein provisional diagnosis has been shown as injuries on neck, shoulder and back.

13. This Court is of the view that the police report submitted by the concerned police station on 27.11.2022 and the medical prescription dated 22.9.2022 have completely been ignored by the court while deciding the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. This Court further is of the view that the matter needs to be remanded to the court concerned for consideration of the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. afresh.

14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision is allowed. The order dated 22.9.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge ( Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge ( Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai for consideration and deciding the Criminal Misc. Application No. 155 of 2022 ( Ram Prakash Mishra Vs. Deepak Mishra and another) afresh, keeping in view the observations made in this order. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Gss GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad