High Court · 2025

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was preferred by complainant/opposite party no. 2 alleging that her son was working in the workshop/shop owner by the revisionist. She has stated that because the revisionist and complainant both belong to Muslim community and it is permissible to contract more than one marriages, the revisionist under the false promise of marriage repeatedly had sexually relations with the complainant. During this period, she also came to know that the revisionist had unnatural sexual relations with her son, consequently pleaded that the revisionist should stop the said misconduct with her son. It has further been alleged that the revisionist stated that she should have sexual relations with other persons known to the revisionist and in case she agrees, her son would not be further sexually harassed and it is only coercion and undue influence of the revisionist that she had consented to have sexual relations with several other persons. After sometimes when she was physically and mentally tortured, she made a written complaint to Police Station Naka on 27.0-2.2024 and as the complaint was not registered, she even made a complaint on the portal of Government of U.P. and subsequently, moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of the said complaint learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow had sought a report from the Police Station Naka, who submitted its report stating therein that there is already a matrimonial/family dispute between the parties wherein the daughter of the revisionist has been engaged to the son of the complainant. It has further been stated that accordingly the revisionist has given his flat to the complainant and one day, the complainant took all the household goods from the said flat and when the revisionist came to know about the said fact and lodged an FIR and all the goods were recovered. Accordingly, a case was registered as Case Crime No. 25 of 2024 under Sections 380 and 411 IPC.

4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow considered the said facts and was of the view that the complaint was lodged in mala-fide manner only to counter the said FIR lodged by the revisionist and rejected application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Against the said rejection order dated 23.07.2024, a revision was preferred before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow has only considered the entire fact and noticed that there are serious allegation of sexual assault made by the complainant and accordingly, was of the considered view that instead of making any observations with regard to the facts as narrated in the complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow has basically considered the allegations, which ave been reported by the police and rejected the application. Accordingly, he was of the view that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should have considered the allegations as brought out in the complaint, which are serious in nature as they pertain to sexual assault on the complainant and consequently, directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order after hearing the complainant and also considered the observations made by the revisional court while passing the said order.

5. Learned counsel for revisionist has assailed the revisional order dated 07.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 561 of 2024 stating that the same is illegal and arbitrary and from the police report, it is abundantly clear that the complaint was made with the mala-fide intention and submits that there is no infirmity in the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow dated 23.07.2024. He further submits that there is no infirmity in the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow is illegal and arbitrary and deserves interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the criminal revision and submits that the revisional court has duly considered the law in this regard and undoubtedly there are allegations of sexual assault by the complainant and no observations have been made even by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and consequently submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned revisional order dated 07.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow and prayed for dismissal of the revision.

7. After hearing learned counsel for parties, it is noticed that undoubtedly serious allegations were levelled by the complainant which has been narrated above. Only on the basis of the police report, application of the complainant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected. Considering the nature of allegations made, it would have been prudent for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to have conducted and inquiry in order to verify the said allegation. It is after due consideration of the material on record, which is in form of the complaint and the inquiry conducted by him which would necessarily include the police report, he should have passed a reasoned and speaking order.

8. Perusal of the complaint indicated commission of cognizable offence and while giving detailed reasons he ought to have returned a finding with regard to the allegations contained in the complaint.

9. This Court further finds that despite narrating the entire series of event, he has not considered or returned any finding with regard to the allegations levelled by the complainant. Accordingly only to that extent, this Court does not find any infirmity in the revisional order, which has noticed the lacuna in the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for revisionist also submits that a fresh order may be passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow but he should apply his independent mind to the facts of the case rather than being guided by the observations made by the revisional court.

11. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not oppose the limited prayer made by learned counsel for revisionist.

12. Accordingly, without interfering with the revisional order, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow is directed to pass a fresh orders on the complaint made by the complainant- opposite party no. 2 in accordance with law.

13. It is made clear that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow shall duly consider all the material on record and would not be influenced by any of the observations made by the revisional court. . Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Virendra (Alok Mathur, J.) VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was preferred by complainant/opposite party no. 2 alleging that her son was working in the workshop/shop owner by the revisionist. She has stated that because the revisionist and complainant both belong to Muslim community and it is permissible to contract more than one marriages, the revisionist under the false promise of marriage repeatedly had sexually relations with the complainant. During this period, she also came to know that the revisionist had unnatural sexual relations with her son, consequently pleaded that the revisionist should stop the said misconduct with her son. It has further been alleged that the revisionist stated that she should have sexual relations with other persons known to the revisionist and in case she agrees, her son would not be further sexually harassed and it is only coercion and undue influence of the revisionist that she had consented to have sexual relations with several other persons. After sometimes when she was physically and mentally tortured, she made a written complaint to Police Station Naka on 27.0-2.2024 and as the complaint was not registered, she even made a complaint on the portal of Government of U.P. and subsequently, moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of the said complaint learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow had sought a report from the Police Station Naka, who submitted its report stating therein that there is already a matrimonial/family dispute between the parties wherein the daughter of the revisionist has been engaged to the son of the complainant. It has further been stated that accordingly the revisionist has given his flat to the complainant and one day, the complainant took all the household goods from the said flat and when the revisionist came to know about the said fact and lodged an FIR and all the goods were recovered. Accordingly, a case was registered as Case Crime No. 25 of 2024 under Sections 380 and 411 IPC.

4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow considered the said facts and was of the view that the complaint was lodged in mala-fide manner only to counter the said FIR lodged by the revisionist and rejected application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Against the said rejection order dated 23.07.2024, a revision was preferred before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow has only considered the entire fact and noticed that there are serious allegation of sexual assault made by the complainant and accordingly, was of the considered view that instead of making any observations with regard to the facts as narrated in the complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow has basically considered the allegations, which ave been reported by the police and rejected the application. Accordingly, he was of the view that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should have considered the allegations as brought out in the complaint, which are serious in nature as they pertain to sexual assault on the complainant and consequently, directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order after hearing the complainant and also considered the observations made by the revisional court while passing the said order.

5. Learned counsel for revisionist has assailed the revisional order dated 07.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 561 of 2024 stating that the same is illegal and arbitrary and from the police report, it is abundantly clear that the complaint was made with the mala-fide intention and submits that there is no infirmity in the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow dated 23.07.2024. He further submits that there is no infirmity in the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow is illegal and arbitrary and deserves interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the criminal revision and submits that the revisional court has duly considered the law in this regard and undoubtedly there are allegations of sexual assault by the complainant and no observations have been made even by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and consequently submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned revisional order dated 07.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow and prayed for dismissal of the revision.

7. After hearing learned counsel for parties, it is noticed that undoubtedly serious allegations were levelled by the complainant which has been narrated above. Only on the basis of the police report, application of the complainant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected. Considering the nature of allegations made, it would have been prudent for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to have conducted and inquiry in order to verify the said allegation. It is after due consideration of the material on record, which is in form of the complaint and the inquiry conducted by him which would necessarily include the police report, he should have passed a reasoned and speaking order.

8. Perusal of the complaint indicated commission of cognizable offence and while giving detailed reasons he ought to have returned a finding with regard to the allegations contained in the complaint.

9. This Court further finds that despite narrating the entire series of event, he has not considered or returned any finding with regard to the allegations levelled by the complainant. Accordingly only to that extent, this Court does not find any infirmity in the revisional order, which has noticed the lacuna in the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for revisionist also submits that a fresh order may be passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow but he should apply his independent mind to the facts of the case rather than being guided by the observations made by the revisional court.

11. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not oppose the limited prayer made by learned counsel for revisionist.

12. Accordingly, without interfering with the revisional order, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow is directed to pass a fresh orders on the complaint made by the complainant- opposite party no. 2 in accordance with law.

13. It is made clear that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow shall duly consider all the material on record and would not be influenced by any of the observations made by the revisional court. . Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Virendra (Alok Mathur, J.) VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench