Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 939 of 2021 Revisionist :- K Riddhi Bathla (Minor) And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 8 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Sahu, learned counsel for revisionists/petitioners and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 11.01.2021, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ghaziabad, whereby learned court below has refused to direct the police to investigate the matter and lodged FIR, but has registered application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as a private complaint and has listed the case for recording of statements of the complainant upon registration of such private complaint.
3. Petitioner's contention is that opposite party no. 4 is her husband, opposite party no. 2 is her past friend, opposite party no. 5 is S.S.I. All the respondents, in collusion, have not only sold the house, which was jointly registered in the name of the petitioner no. 2 and her husband, F-101, Apex Royal Castle, Nyay Khand-I, Indirapuram, Police Station-Indirapuram, District-Ghaziabad, but are harassing the petitioners and are not getting the sale deed executed, in relation to a flat, for which, applicant no. 2 had paid advance of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs rupees) in favour of respondent no. 2-Rakesh Gupta. It is submitted that if FIR is not directed to be lodged, then proper investigation, cannot be carried out. Statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., will not be recorded and that will cause not only prejudice to the applicant, but also endanger the life of petitioner no. 1, who is a minor daughter of petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 4.
4. Learned AGA for the State, in his turn, submits that law laid down by Allahabad High Court in this regard in case of Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2011 (72) ACC 564, where in it has held that it is the discretion of the Magistrate that when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is presented before him, then if he finds that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused, then he may direct for registration of the complaint or if some material is to be discovered, then he may direct for investigation by lodging the FIR.
5. In the present case, all the material, in relation to the commission of alleged offence, has already been produced by the complainant. Therefore, in my opinion, the court below has not committed any illegality in not directing the police investigation, but in the alternative, directing for registration for a private complaint and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead their evidence in support.
6. Therefore, their being no illegality in the light of the judgment of Father Thomas (supra), thus, petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Vikram/-