Ram Samujh v. Harish Chandra and Others, whereby the complaint made by the

Appellant :- Ram Samujh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vikas Verma,Abhishek Srivastava,Shweta Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ripu Daman Shahi,Upendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Verma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 6.

2. By means of present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act the appellant has assailed the order dated 10.05.2024, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shrawasti in Complaint No. 20 of 2024 - Ram Samujh Vs. Harish Chandra and Others, whereby the complaint made by the appellant has been treated to be a complaint case.

3. Brief facts giving rise to present appeal are that on 16.02.2024, son of appellant went to 'atta chakki' and when he did not return back home in the evening, a search was conducted by his family members but he could not be found. Subsequently, family of appellant received information that son of appellant has been kidnapped by respondent nos. 4 to 6 in a Bolero Car. It is further stated by the appellant that respondent nos. 4 to 6 are having old enmity with the family members of the appellant due to political rivalry as they did not support the candidate of respondent nos. 4 to 6 and accordingly informed the Police that his son has been kidnapped by respondent nos. 4 to 6 and in all likelihood his son has been killed, and when first information report was not lodged, they moved registered letter to the Superintendent of Police and thereafter to the Chairman, SC/ST Commission, Lucknow and lastly filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating therein that son of the appellant was never traced out and by means of impugned order dated 10.05.2024, the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shrawasti considered it to be a complaint case.

4. While passing the impugned order, the Court has taken into account the fact that no first information report in the said regard has been lodged by the Police and also that on the basis of information disclosed in the complaint by the complainant himself, no such fact has been disclosed which may require any investigation by the Police and accordingly as registered the same as complaint case.

5. In the present appeal this Court at the very outset by means of order dated 26.09.2024 had taken cognizance of the aforesaid facts and required the Superintendent of Police, Shrawasti to conduct investigation pertaining to the description of the complaint and submit a report.

6. A copy of the report dated 04.11.2024 has been physically handed over to this Court during course of hearing. The said report is taken on record. The first issue which requires consideration is as to whether the trial Court in the facts of the present case was correct in registering the complaint case rather than directing the Police to conduct investigation by registering first information report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. The facts as disclosed in the complaint and recorded by the trial Court, are with regard to the fact that son of complainant had gone missing after he had gone for work on 16.02.2024. The complainant has further disclosed that one Sita Ram and Bhaiya Ram alongwith certain other persons have informed that certain individuals have taken his son forcibly in the white Bolero Car. The allegations levelled by the complainant was that his son has been kidnapped and murdered. As per aforesaid allegations, the very fact that it was alleged that son of the complainant was missing, it was sufficient in itself for the trial Court to have directed registration of FIR, in order to trace out a missing person, would require investigation and such a task would not be within the competence of private individuals.

7. Apart from the above, it was stated that there is all likelihood of complainant's son being murdered, such a serious offence against public being disclosed by the father of the victim, certainly requires the matter to be investigated by the Police being a cognizable offence rather than to be treated as complaint case and proceeded accordingly.

8. This aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705, wherein the Apex Cort has observed as under : "10. We may first examine whether the Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, could act in a mechanical or casual manner and go on with the complaint after getting the report.

11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case [(2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation."

9. In the light of above, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the present case, the trial Court should have directed registration of FIR and should have got the matter investigated by the Police rather then leaving it to the complainant to prosecute the said case. Necessary evidence was required apart from the fact that son of the complainant is still not traced out and certainly such a matter can be dealt with only during due investigation.

10. Accordingly, impugned order dated 10.05.2024, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shrawasti, to pass fresh orders. Considering that in the meanwhile this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Shrawasti to conduct investigation and report to that effect is on record, the said report dated 04.11.2024. is liable to be considered as inquiry report under the provisions of Section 175(3) of BNSS and while passing fresh order, the said report shall also be considered by the trial Court.

11. A copy of the investigation report dated 04.11.2024, shall be forwarded by the office of the Government Advocate of the High Court to the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shrawasti.

12. In the light of above, the present appeal stands allowed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Appellant :- Ram Samujh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vikas Verma,Abhishek Srivastava,Shweta Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ripu Daman Shahi,Upendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Verma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 6.

2. By means of present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act the appellant has assailed the order dated 10.05.2024, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shrawasti in Complaint No. 20 of 2024 - Ram Samujh Vs. Harish Chandra and Others, whereby the complaint made by the appellant has been treated to be a complaint case.

3. Brief facts giving rise to present appeal are that on 16.02.2024, son of appellant went to 'atta chakki' and when he did not return back home in the evening, a search was conducted by his family members but he could not be found. Subsequently, family of appellant received information that son of appellant has been kidnapped by respondent nos. 4 to 6 in a Bolero Car. It is further stated by the appellant that respondent nos. 4 to 6 are having old enmity with the family members of the appellant due to political rivalry as they did not support the candidate of respondent nos. 4 to 6 and accordingly informed the Police that his son has been kidnapped by respondent nos. 4 to 6 and in all likelihood his son has been killed, and when first information report was not lodged, they moved registered letter to the Superintendent of Police and thereafter to the Chairman, SC/ST Commission, Lucknow and lastly filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating therein that son of the appellant was never traced out and by means of impugned order dated 10.05.2024, the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shrawasti considered it to be a complaint case.

4. While passing the impugned order, the Court has taken into account the fact that no first information report in the said regard has been lodged by the Police and also that on the basis of information disclosed in the complaint by the complainant himself, no such fact has been disclosed which may require any investigation by the Police and accordingly as registered the same as complaint case.

5. In the present appeal this Court at the very outset by means of order dated 26.09.2024 had taken cognizance of the aforesaid facts and required the Superintendent of Police, Shrawasti to conduct investigation pertaining to the description of the complaint and submit a report.

6. A copy of the report dated 04.11.2024 has been physically handed over to this Court during course of hearing. The said report is taken on record. The first issue which requires consideration is as to whether the trial Court in the facts of the present case was correct in registering the complaint case rather than directing the Police to conduct investigation by registering first information report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. The facts as disclosed in the complaint and recorded by the trial Court, are with regard to the fact that son of complainant had gone missing after he had gone for work on 16.02.2024. The complainant has further disclosed that one Sita Ram and Bhaiya Ram alongwith certain other persons have informed that certain individuals have taken his son forcibly in the white Bolero Car. The allegations levelled by the complainant was that his son has been kidnapped and murdered. As per aforesaid allegations, the very fact that it was alleged that son of the complainant was missing, it was sufficient in itself for the trial Court to have directed registration of FIR, in order to trace out a missing person, would require investigation and such a task would not be within the competence of private individuals.

7. Apart from the above, it was stated that there is all likelihood of complainant's son being murdered, such a serious offence against public being disclosed by the father of the victim, certainly requires the matter to be investigated by the Police being a cognizable offence rather than to be treated as complaint case and proceeded accordingly.

8. This aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705, wherein the Apex Cort has observed as under : "10. We may first examine whether the Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, could act in a mechanical or casual manner and go on with the complaint after getting the report.

11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case [(2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation."

9. In the light of above, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the present case, the trial Court should have directed registration of FIR and should have got the matter investigated by the Police rather then leaving it to the complainant to prosecute the said case. Necessary evidence was required apart from the fact that son of the complainant is still not traced out and certainly such a matter can be dealt with only during due investigation.

10. Accordingly, impugned order dated 10.05.2024, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shrawasti, to pass fresh orders. Considering that in the meanwhile this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Shrawasti to conduct investigation and report to that effect is on record, the said report dated 04.11.2024. is liable to be considered as inquiry report under the provisions of Section 175(3) of BNSS and while passing fresh order, the said report shall also be considered by the trial Court.

11. A copy of the investigation report dated 04.11.2024, shall be forwarded by the office of the Government Advocate of the High Court to the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shrawasti.

12. In the light of above, the present appeal stands allowed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench