Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1611 of 2003 Revisionist :- Smt. Brahm Kali And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- V. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
No one is present on behalf of the revisionists even in revised list. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
From perusal of record, it appears that vide order dated 11.6.2003, the Court had passed the order to the effect that investigation may continue pursuant to the impugned order, but the applicants will not be arrested for the purpose of that investigation.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 03.5.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 159/11/2003: Renu Vs. Sanjay by which, learned Magistrate has directed the police to register the FIR and investigate into the offence.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, this revision has been filed on the ground that by the application no cognizable offence was made out, the parties have already compromised before the family court on 29.9.2002 and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and not sustainable under the law. The opposite party no. 2 has made wrong allegation against the revisionist nos. 4 and 5 who were sisters of husband of opposite party no. 2 and they have married 5 to 7 years before.
An application was given by the opposite party no. 2 before the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. making an allegation of demand of dowry and dowry harassment and on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry committing marpeet.
From perusal of impugned order, it appears that after going into allegations made in the application, the learned Magistrate found that cognizable offence was made out and, therefore, directed for registration of FIR and investigation by the police. The law on this point is settled by the judgment in the case of Jagannath Verma Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (3) JIC 930 Alld. Full Bench and in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287 that a revision against the order allowing an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
In view of above discussion, I do not find any material irregularity or illegality or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, hence revision is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 RCT/-