Sughar Singh v. Satish & Ors.) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67412 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4935 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sughar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Pandey,Giri Ram Rawat,Indra Deo Mishra,Shri Ram (Rawat) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.
Legal Reasoning
2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 14.8.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 650 of 2024 (Sughar Singh Vs. Satish & Ors.) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., had been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the contents of the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclose a cognizable offence but in spite of that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, only relying on the police report, had rejected the revisionist's application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has argued that there is a private dispute in between the revisionist and his son relating to a property and therefore, the revisionist is trying to lodge an absolutely false criminal case against the opposite parties. He further argues that the learned magistrate in the matter sought a report from the police station concerned and from the report, it transpired that no such incident had taken place. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State also submits that even in the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it has not been disclosed that any resident of the village has seen the incident. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, thus has argued that the impugned order dated 14.8.2024 is a well considered order and therefore, this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I have gone through the contents of the order impugned in this criminal revision. 8. I find that there exists a dispute of property in between the revisionist and his son and therefore, the revisionist, just to lodge a frivolous case against his son, had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned magistrate on the said application sought a report from the concerned police station and from the report it transpired that no incident, as alleged in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ever took place. 9. It transpires that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad had considered the matter in detail. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 14.8.2024 is extracted as under :- " ककततधधकतरर कक आखयत अननसतर आवकदक एएव गवतहह सक कक गई पपछततछ एवए जतनकतरर सक पतयत कक आवकदक सनघर धसएह एवए कवपकर सतरश चनद ररशतक मम कपतत- पनत हह तथत शरमतर सनखदकवर आवकदक कक ररशतक मम पतनर हह। आवकदक कत अपनक पनत सतरश चनद व पतनर शरमतर सनखदकवर सक जमरन कक लककर मन- मनटतव चल रहत हह। कयहकक आवकदक सनघर धसएह कक कपतत मनलतयम धसएह दतरत सनघर धसएह कक गएदक आचरण व सममतन न करनक कक चलतक अपनर जरकवत रहतक हहए हर अपनर समपपणर भपकम लगभग 24 बरघत अपनर पनतवधप शरमतर सनखदकवर कक नतम कर दर थर। सनखदकवर दतरत 8 बरघत जमरन कक दतन पतत मम अपनक बकटर सतरश चनद कक नतम कर कदयत धजस पर आवकदक अपनर पतनर सनखदकवर पर अपनक छकटक बकटक सनरजरत कक पनत कक नतम भपकम करनक कत दबतव बनतनक लगत। बतत नहर मतननक पर आवकदक अपनर पतनर व पनत सक नतरतज रहनक लगत। उ०कन० अमर धसएह कक हलकत ककत मम गतम मकहबनलतपनर कह रतवलर हकनक कक कतरण आवकदक शर सनघर धसएह व उसकक पनतवधप सएतकषर दकवर दतरत कक गई ऑनलतइन कशकतयतह कक जतएच उ०कन० अमर धसएह दतरत कक गई, धजनहम थतनत पभतरर धसरसतगएज गई ऑनलतइन कशकतयतह कक जतएच अमर धसएह दतर कक गई, धजनहम थतनत पभतरर धसरसतगएज दतरत अगसतररत ककयत गयत। आवकदक सनघर धसएह व उसकक पनतवधप सएतकषर दकवर दतरत कक गई कशकतयतह पर थतनत सतर सक कवपकरगण कक कवरद अकभयकग पएजरकक त नहर ककयत गयत और आवकदक कक पनत सनरजरत कक कवरद हर कदनतएक 15-03-2024 कक समय 14.35 बजक रपट नए०-35 पर चतलतनर अनतगरत धतरत-151/107/116 द०प०सए० कक कतयरवतहर कक गई तक आवकदक सनघर धसएह उ०कन० अमर धसएह व पभतरर कनररकक शर बहजनतथ धसएह सक कन कपत हक गयत तथत कन कपत हककर आवकदक दतरत पभतरर कनररकक शर बहजनतथ धसएह थतनत धसरसतगएज व उ०कन० अमर धसएह व अजतत 2 पनधलस ककमरयह पर आरकप लगतकर पतयतरकप लगतकर कशकतयत कर दर तथत गतम वतधसयह दतरत कवपकर सतरश चनद कक तरफदतरर करनक पर आवकदक शर सनघर धसएह दतरत पपवर गतम पधतन नरटप व रतजरव कक कवरद भर कशकतयत करनत शनर कर कदयत। उपरकक सक पथम दषयत यह तथय पकट हकतत हह कक आवकदक दतरत अपनक पतथरनतपत मम कवपकरगण कक कवरद ककयक गयक कथन कनरतधतर हह तथत कवपकरगण पर दबतव बनतनक कक उदकशय सक बढत-चढत कर कथन करतक हहए असतय तथयक पर यह पतथरनतपत नयतयतलय कक समक पसतनत ककयत गयत हह। इस समबनध मम मतननरय सवरचय नयतयतलय कक कवधध वयवसथत कपएयकत शरवतसतव व अनय बनतम उ०प० रतजय व अनय फफजदतरर अपरल सए०-781/2012 कनणरय कदनतएक 19-03- 2015 मम यह अकभकनधतरररत ककयत गयत हह कक-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 court. A litigant at the 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. इस कवधध वयवसथत मम कदयक गयक कनदरशक कक अननरप मधजसटट कट कत दतकयतव हह कक पतथरनतपत अएतगरत धतरत 156 (3) ८०प०सए० कत कनसततरण करतक समय मधजसटट कट कक अतयनत सजग रहनत चतकहए। उपरकक कवधध वयवसथत कक आलकक मम तथय व एवए पररससथकतयह कक दकषगत रखतक हहए मतमलक मम मनकदमत पएजरकक त कर कववकचनत कक आदकश पतररत ककयक जतनक कत पयतरप आधतर नहह हह। पतथरनतपत कनरसत ककयक जतनक यकगय हह।" 10. I have gone through the contents of the impugned order dated 14.8.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad and I find that the order is a well considered order and does not suffer from any illegality. This Court is of the view that there exists a private dispute in between the revisionist and his son and therefore, the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is a device for the revisionist to lodge a frivolous case against his son. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Gaurav Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad