Tarachandra v. State & others) and order dated

Applicant :- Tarachand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Nath Pandey,Dwijendra Mishra,Hemlata Verma,Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer as well as perused the record.

2. The instant application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Ayodhya/Faizabad in Revision No. 85/2024, CNR No. UPFZ010022072024, Computerized Registration No. 87/2024, (Tarachandra Vs. State & others) and order dated 12.03.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Ayodhya in Criminal Misc. Case No. 15631/2023 under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Tara Chandra Vs. Foolchand, Police Station- Cantt. District- Ayodhya, in the interest of justice."

3. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Ayodhya (in short "Magistrate") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 15631/2023 filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Tara Chandra Vs. Foolchand), whereby, the Magistrate dismissed the said case, reads as under:- "5. पप०पत मम वरररत कथनपननसपर सव० अशरर लपल कक पपततक पशनगत भवन कप उसकक मततयन कक बपद पपथर कक तपउ मततक रपम करन पचपयतत लललखत अरभकथन कक आधपर पर सवपमत हहए। रपम करन दपरप पपथर कक पक मम अपनत ससपलत कक पसजतकत त वसतयत रनषपपरदत कक गयत हप परसतन पपथर कक रफ लचसद नक अपरपलधक षडयसत करकक नगरपपललकप तथप रपजसव अरभलकखख मम तनहप अपनप नपम दजर करपकर सपलत कक अवपध रप सक हडप ललयप हप। रपतप रवपकत ससखयप 1 थपनक कक आखयपननसपर आवकदक तपरपचसद व रवपकत रफ लचसद दकनख रपतप पनत हह। लजनकक मधय पपततक ससपलत कक बसटवपरक कक लककर पपररवपररक रववपद हप। पपततक आवपस कक लककर लसरवल जज सत०रड० महकदय कक यहप वपद सखयप 323/2021 यकलजत हप। पप०पत मम वरररत अरभकथनख एवस पतपवलत पर उपलबध अनय दसतपवकजख कक अवलककन सक पथम दषयप यह पररलरकत हकतप हप रक पककपरख कक मधय मनखय रववपद पशनगत पपततक ससपलत कक बसटवपरक सक ससबसलधत दतवपनत पकत रत कप हप लजसकक ललए थपनक कक आखयपननसपर सकम दतवपनत नयपयपलय मम वपद रवचपरपधतन हप। पपथरनपपत कक अवलककन सक पथम दषयप यह दरशरत हकतप हप रक पपथर दपरप रवलधक परपमशर कक आधपर पर लसरवल पकत रत कक रववपद कक आपरपलधक रसग दककर पपथरनपपत पसतनत रकयप गयप हप। उक कक ससबसध मम रनमन नयपरयक दषपसत कप उलकख रकयप जपनप पपससरगक हप। - मम मपननतय उचचतम नयपयपलय दपरप यह अरभरनधपरररत रकयप दकवकनद बनपम सटकट आर यफ०पत० गयप हप रक लसरवल अपकपर व दपणणडक अपकपर मम रभनतप रकयप जपनप चपरहए। जहपस पकख कक मधय लसरवल पकत रत कप 2009 (7) ACC 495 रववपद हप वहपस दपणणडक कपयरवपहत ससचपललत रकयप जपनप नयपय ससगत नहह हप। मम मपननतय उचचतम नयपयपलय जकसकर सपलवरपज बनपम सटकट आर गनजरपत एवस अनय दपरप यह अवधपररत रकयप हप रक जहपस दपणणडक मनकदमम कक आधपर मफल तथयप कक वल लसरवल दपरयतव उतपन करनक वपलक हक। वहपस दपणणडक कपयरवपहत ससचपललत नहह कक जप सकतत। ए०सत०सत० 2011 (7) 69 शतमतत रपयसकप शतवपसतव तथप अनय बनपम उतर पदकश मपननतय उचचतम नयपयपलय दपरप परतपपरदत रवलध वयवसथप रपजय व अनय Criminal Appeal no 781 (2012) मम भत यह अरभरनधपरररत रकयप गयप हप रक "It is seemly to state that power U/S 156 (3) warrants application of mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim can not invoke the authority of the magistrate. A principled and really aggrieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigants take this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curt the same." In Sukhwasi v. State of U.P. [ 2008 CriLJ 472] it has been laid down by the Hon'ble HC Allahabad 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." It has been further held that "the Magistrate is not bound in each and every case to pass an order to register a case and investigate if cognizable offence is made out. The Magistrate is fully competent to use this judicial direction in the matter." It has also been held that "if the Magistrate is of opinion that false and frivolous allegation has been made in application than he may reject the application."

7. अतत पपथरनपपत अनतरगत धपरप 156 (3) अतत पपथरनपपत मम वरररत तथयख कक ससबसध मम रवपकत दपरप ससजकय अपरपध कपररत रकयप जपनप पकट नहह हकतप हप। दस०प०सस० रनरसत रकयक जपनक यकगय हप। पपथरनपपत 156 (3) दस०प०सस० रनरसत रकयप जपतप हप। पतपवलत रनयमपननसपर दपलखल दफतर हक।" आदकश

4. Considered the observations made by the Magistrate in the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 and by the revisional court in the impugned order dated 20.02.2025, whereby, the revisional court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Magistrate, and also that the revisionist is the son of opposite party No. 2 and Civil Suit No. 323/2021 is pending with regard to the property of Ram Karan, who executed a registered 'Will' and opposite party No. 2 got entered his name in the Nagar Palika and revenue records with regard to the property under the 'Will' and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2022, decided on 02.01.2023, Prof R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.1434 of 2018, decided on 15.02.2019, and Lalit Chaturvedi & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, SLP (Crl) No.13485 of 2023, order dated 06.02.2024.

5. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the instant application. It is accordingly dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Tarachand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Nath Pandey,Dwijendra Mishra,Hemlata Verma,Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer as well as perused the record.

2. The instant application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Ayodhya/Faizabad in Revision No. 85/2024, CNR No. UPFZ010022072024, Computerized Registration No. 87/2024, (Tarachandra Vs. State & others) and order dated 12.03.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Ayodhya in Criminal Misc. Case No. 15631/2023 under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Tara Chandra Vs. Foolchand, Police Station- Cantt. District- Ayodhya, in the interest of justice."

3. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Ayodhya (in short "Magistrate") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 15631/2023 filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Tara Chandra Vs. Foolchand), whereby, the Magistrate dismissed the said case, reads as under:- "5. पप०पत मम वरररत कथनपननसपर सव० अशरर लपल कक पपततक पशनगत भवन कप उसकक मततयन कक बपद पपथर कक तपउ मततक रपम करन पचपयतत लललखत अरभकथन कक आधपर पर सवपमत हहए। रपम करन दपरप पपथर कक पक मम अपनत ससपलत कक पसजतकत त वसतयत रनषपपरदत कक गयत हप परसतन पपथर कक रफ लचसद नक अपरपलधक षडयसत करकक नगरपपललकप तथप रपजसव अरभलकखख मम तनहप अपनप नपम दजर करपकर सपलत कक अवपध रप सक हडप ललयप हप। रपतप रवपकत ससखयप 1 थपनक कक आखयपननसपर आवकदक तपरपचसद व रवपकत रफ लचसद दकनख रपतप पनत हह। लजनकक मधय पपततक ससपलत कक बसटवपरक कक लककर पपररवपररक रववपद हप। पपततक आवपस कक लककर लसरवल जज सत०रड० महकदय कक यहप वपद सखयप 323/2021 यकलजत हप। पप०पत मम वरररत अरभकथनख एवस पतपवलत पर उपलबध अनय दसतपवकजख कक अवलककन सक पथम दषयप यह पररलरकत हकतप हप रक पककपरख कक मधय मनखय रववपद पशनगत पपततक ससपलत कक बसटवपरक सक ससबसलधत दतवपनत पकत रत कप हप लजसकक ललए थपनक कक आखयपननसपर सकम दतवपनत नयपयपलय मम वपद रवचपरपधतन हप। पपथरनपपत कक अवलककन सक पथम दषयप यह दरशरत हकतप हप रक पपथर दपरप रवलधक परपमशर कक आधपर पर लसरवल पकत रत कक रववपद कक आपरपलधक रसग दककर पपथरनपपत पसतनत रकयप गयप हप। उक कक ससबसध मम रनमन नयपरयक दषपसत कप उलकख रकयप जपनप पपससरगक हप। - मम मपननतय उचचतम नयपयपलय दपरप यह अरभरनधपरररत रकयप दकवकनद बनपम सटकट आर यफ०पत० गयप हप रक लसरवल अपकपर व दपणणडक अपकपर मम रभनतप रकयप जपनप चपरहए। जहपस पकख कक मधय लसरवल पकत रत कप 2009 (7) ACC 495 रववपद हप वहपस दपणणडक कपयरवपहत ससचपललत रकयप जपनप नयपय ससगत नहह हप। मम मपननतय उचचतम नयपयपलय जकसकर सपलवरपज बनपम सटकट आर गनजरपत एवस अनय दपरप यह अवधपररत रकयप हप रक जहपस दपणणडक मनकदमम कक आधपर मफल तथयप कक वल लसरवल दपरयतव उतपन करनक वपलक हक। वहपस दपणणडक कपयरवपहत ससचपललत नहह कक जप सकतत। ए०सत०सत० 2011 (7) 69 शतमतत रपयसकप शतवपसतव तथप अनय बनपम उतर पदकश मपननतय उचचतम नयपयपलय दपरप परतपपरदत रवलध वयवसथप रपजय व अनय Criminal Appeal no 781 (2012) मम भत यह अरभरनधपरररत रकयप गयप हप रक "It is seemly to state that power U/S 156 (3) warrants application of mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim can not invoke the authority of the magistrate. A principled and really aggrieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigants take this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curt the same." In Sukhwasi v. State of U.P. [ 2008 CriLJ 472] it has been laid down by the Hon'ble HC Allahabad 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." It has been further held that "the Magistrate is not bound in each and every case to pass an order to register a case and investigate if cognizable offence is made out. The Magistrate is fully competent to use this judicial direction in the matter." It has also been held that "if the Magistrate is of opinion that false and frivolous allegation has been made in application than he may reject the application."

7. अतत पपथरनपपत अनतरगत धपरप 156 (3) अतत पपथरनपपत मम वरररत तथयख कक ससबसध मम रवपकत दपरप ससजकय अपरपध कपररत रकयप जपनप पकट नहह हकतप हप। दस०प०सस० रनरसत रकयक जपनक यकगय हप। पपथरनपपत 156 (3) दस०प०सस० रनरसत रकयप जपतप हप। पतपवलत रनयमपननसपर दपलखल दफतर हक।" आदकश

4. Considered the observations made by the Magistrate in the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 and by the revisional court in the impugned order dated 20.02.2025, whereby, the revisional court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Magistrate, and also that the revisionist is the son of opposite party No. 2 and Civil Suit No. 323/2021 is pending with regard to the property of Ram Karan, who executed a registered 'Will' and opposite party No. 2 got entered his name in the Nagar Palika and revenue records with regard to the property under the 'Will' and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2022, decided on 02.01.2023, Prof R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.1434 of 2018, decided on 15.02.2019, and Lalit Chaturvedi & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, SLP (Crl) No.13485 of 2023, order dated 06.02.2024.

5. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the instant application. It is accordingly dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench