Sudesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others) as well as impugned order dated

1. Heard Sri Amir Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2024 (Sudesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others) as well as impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Misc. Case No. 2362 of 2023 (Sudesh Kumar vs. Mohd. Yaseen and Others) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel of the applicant submits that the applicant herein had purchased a house from its owner, Mohammad Salim, vide sale deed dated 02.11.2023 and since thereafter, he was in occupation of the said house. On 28.11.2023, the opposite parties no. 4 to 13 came to the applicant's house and told that it is their house and they had purchased from one Yasin and tried to break open the house. The applicant objected to the same and stopped the opposite parties from breaking the lock of the house and asked them to show their documents. He also called the police on 112. Thereafter, the opposite parties went away from the place. Next day, the applicant went to the police station alongwith the documents of the purchase of the said house. The accused persons were present at the police station. They also showed a sale deed executed by one Yasin, dated 03.01.2023 in their favor, upon which the police stopped them from occupying the house of the applicant without proper documents. When the applicant inquired in the office of the Registrar, Bulandshahr, then he came to know that the accused persons had got executed a forged and fabricated sale deed by impersonating Mohammad Yasin as Mohammad Salim before the Registrar's Office and on the basis of the same they want to forcibly occupy the house of the applicants. Thereupon, the applicant herein filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. When the trial court having gone through the record of the case, came to the conclusion that since no fact, which is not in the knowledge of the complainant is required to be inquired into by the investigation and all the facts are in the knowledge of the complainant and the dispute relates to the documentary evidence, thus, the learned trial court converted the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case under Section 400 Cr.P.C., against which the applicant herein filed a Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2024, before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Bulandshahr, which was also rejected vide order dated 08.10.2024 and the order dated 08.01.2024, passed by the trial court, was affirmed against which the instant application has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that forged documents have been created and fabricated by the opposing parties, therefore, proper investigation is required in the instant case. Therefore, instead of treating the instant case as a complaint case, the Magistrate was duty-bound to direct the registration of the F.I.R. for proper investigation of the case. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court.

5. Per contra, the learned A.GA for the state submits that in the instant case all the evidence which is to be lead before the trial court, is by leading evidence and the expert opinions before the court with regard to the genuineness of the documents, which can very well be done in the complaint case. No specific inquiry or investigation is required and no document is required to be recovered or discovered in the instant case. Therefore, he submits that no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the allegations as made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are with regard to the subsequent execution of the sale deed in his favour by the opposite parties, for which previous sale deed has already been executed in favour of the applicant and his name was mutated in the records. Primarily a dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. Though that may lead to some criminal offence as well. In the judgment dated 02.09.2024 in Mukesh Kharwar vs. State of U.P. (Application under Section 482 No. 24716 of 2014) relied upon by the applicant, the following has been concluded by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. : "19. Perusal of the impugned order shows that no sufficient reason has been disclosed, on the basis of which, the Magistrate has proceeded to treat the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. Merely because the facts are in the knowledge of the applicant, direction to lodge FIR cannot be refused. The gravity/seriousness of the offence; the requirement of the evidence for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution, and basically the interest of justice depending on the facts of each case, need be considered in passing the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C."

7. From the aforesaid observations made by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as the Division Bench judgement in Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (2007 (59) ACC 739), in application under Section 156(3), it is not mandatory to direct for registration of the FIR in each case, it will depend upon the facts of each case warranting the registration of the FIR. If the facts are well within the knowledge of the complainant and no disclosure or recovery or investigation is required in the matter. Registration of FIR may not be required in each and every case.

8. In Lala Ram vs. State of U.P. and 13 others, AHC (119) 365, this Court has enumerated all the conditions when on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a direction for registration of FIR is mandatory. In Lala Ram vs. State of U.P. (supra), following observations have been made: "(40.08) However, where some investigation is required which is of a nature that is not possible for the private complainant and which can only be done by the police officer upon whom statute has conferred the powers essential for investigation, the option to direct the registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police officer should be exercised, for example:- (i) where the full details of the accused are not known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation, or (ii) where recovery of abducted person or stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons, or (iii) where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused evidence is required to be collected and preserved, and to illustrate this, by few example cases may be visualised where for production before Court at the trial (a) sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the place of incident; or (b) recovery of case property is to be made and kept sealed; or (c) recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; or d) preparation of inquest report; or (e) witnesses are not known and have to be found out or discovered through the process of investigation."

9. From the perusal of the aforesaid observations, it is only in the circumstances when the full details of the accused or witnesses are not known to the complainant and the same is required to be discovered only by investigation or where the recovery of abducted or stolen property is required to be made by raids or searches of suspected places or persons or where any material is required to be collected and preserved only in such circumstances, the registration of FIR is mandatory. When all the facts of the case details of the accused and the witnesses is fully known to the complainant and nothing is required to be discovered or recovered by the the investigation nor any recovery of incriminating articles is required, in such circumstances, registration of FIR on an Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be held to be mandatory.

10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders dated 08.01.2024 and 08.10.2024 passed by the court below.

11. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Amir Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2024 (Sudesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others) as well as impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Misc. Case No. 2362 of 2023 (Sudesh Kumar vs. Mohd. Yaseen and Others) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel of the applicant submits that the applicant herein had purchased a house from its owner, Mohammad Salim, vide sale deed dated 02.11.2023 and since thereafter, he was in occupation of the said house. On 28.11.2023, the opposite parties no. 4 to 13 came to the applicant's house and told that it is their house and they had purchased from one Yasin and tried to break open the house. The applicant objected to the same and stopped the opposite parties from breaking the lock of the house and asked them to show their documents. He also called the police on 112. Thereafter, the opposite parties went away from the place. Next day, the applicant went to the police station alongwith the documents of the purchase of the said house. The accused persons were present at the police station. They also showed a sale deed executed by one Yasin, dated 03.01.2023 in their favor, upon which the police stopped them from occupying the house of the applicant without proper documents. When the applicant inquired in the office of the Registrar, Bulandshahr, then he came to know that the accused persons had got executed a forged and fabricated sale deed by impersonating Mohammad Yasin as Mohammad Salim before the Registrar's Office and on the basis of the same they want to forcibly occupy the house of the applicants. Thereupon, the applicant herein filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. When the trial court having gone through the record of the case, came to the conclusion that since no fact, which is not in the knowledge of the complainant is required to be inquired into by the investigation and all the facts are in the knowledge of the complainant and the dispute relates to the documentary evidence, thus, the learned trial court converted the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case under Section 400 Cr.P.C., against which the applicant herein filed a Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2024, before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Bulandshahr, which was also rejected vide order dated 08.10.2024 and the order dated 08.01.2024, passed by the trial court, was affirmed against which the instant application has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that forged documents have been created and fabricated by the opposing parties, therefore, proper investigation is required in the instant case. Therefore, instead of treating the instant case as a complaint case, the Magistrate was duty-bound to direct the registration of the F.I.R. for proper investigation of the case. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court.

5. Per contra, the learned A.GA for the state submits that in the instant case all the evidence which is to be lead before the trial court, is by leading evidence and the expert opinions before the court with regard to the genuineness of the documents, which can very well be done in the complaint case. No specific inquiry or investigation is required and no document is required to be recovered or discovered in the instant case. Therefore, he submits that no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the allegations as made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are with regard to the subsequent execution of the sale deed in his favour by the opposite parties, for which previous sale deed has already been executed in favour of the applicant and his name was mutated in the records. Primarily a dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. Though that may lead to some criminal offence as well. In the judgment dated 02.09.2024 in Mukesh Kharwar vs. State of U.P. (Application under Section 482 No. 24716 of 2014) relied upon by the applicant, the following has been concluded by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. : "19. Perusal of the impugned order shows that no sufficient reason has been disclosed, on the basis of which, the Magistrate has proceeded to treat the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. Merely because the facts are in the knowledge of the applicant, direction to lodge FIR cannot be refused. The gravity/seriousness of the offence; the requirement of the evidence for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution, and basically the interest of justice depending on the facts of each case, need be considered in passing the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C."

7. From the aforesaid observations made by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as the Division Bench judgement in Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (2007 (59) ACC 739), in application under Section 156(3), it is not mandatory to direct for registration of the FIR in each case, it will depend upon the facts of each case warranting the registration of the FIR. If the facts are well within the knowledge of the complainant and no disclosure or recovery or investigation is required in the matter. Registration of FIR may not be required in each and every case.

8. In Lala Ram vs. State of U.P. and 13 others, AHC (119) 365, this Court has enumerated all the conditions when on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a direction for registration of FIR is mandatory. In Lala Ram vs. State of U.P. (supra), following observations have been made: "(40.08) However, where some investigation is required which is of a nature that is not possible for the private complainant and which can only be done by the police officer upon whom statute has conferred the powers essential for investigation, the option to direct the registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police officer should be exercised, for example:- (i) where the full details of the accused are not known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation, or (ii) where recovery of abducted person or stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons, or (iii) where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused evidence is required to be collected and preserved, and to illustrate this, by few example cases may be visualised where for production before Court at the trial (a) sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the place of incident; or (b) recovery of case property is to be made and kept sealed; or (c) recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; or d) preparation of inquest report; or (e) witnesses are not known and have to be found out or discovered through the process of investigation."

9. From the perusal of the aforesaid observations, it is only in the circumstances when the full details of the accused or witnesses are not known to the complainant and the same is required to be discovered only by investigation or where the recovery of abducted or stolen property is required to be made by raids or searches of suspected places or persons or where any material is required to be collected and preserved only in such circumstances, the registration of FIR is mandatory. When all the facts of the case details of the accused and the witnesses is fully known to the complainant and nothing is required to be discovered or recovered by the the investigation nor any recovery of incriminating articles is required, in such circumstances, registration of FIR on an Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be held to be mandatory.

10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders dated 08.01.2024 and 08.10.2024 passed by the court below.

11. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad