The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Barabanki in Criminal Revision Trial No.99 of 2019, which was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.5.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Learned Magistrate had rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. after considering the police report.
The petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that on 22.10.2018 at around 7 AM, two police men along with Prahlad and other persons came to the house of the petitioner and they enquired about the petitioner from his wife. In the meantime, the petitioner came in the house and then the police men and the persons, who came to the house of the petitioner, said that they would falsely implicate him in several cases and they would finish him in the police station. Thereafter, they started abusing him and assaulting him and made him to sit in Car No.UP32 HX 3594 (Bolero). They threatened him to compromise the case with Brijendra etc. It was also said that the accused stopped the vehicle near Indira Canal, Abhay and Prahlad threatened the petitioner by showing country-made pistol. They were asking him to compromise the case with Barsati and others, otherwise they would kill him and throw his body in the Canal.
On the aforesaid report, learned Magistrate asked the concerned police station to submit the report. Report was submitted by the police and, it was said that one FIR No.133 of 2018, under Sections 406, 506 IPC was registered against the brother of the petitioner. The petitioner was called in the police station on the date of the incident for investigation. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed in order to put pressure on the witnesses and as a counter blast measure.
Considering the police report, learned Magistrate rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner filed revision and, the revisional court has upheld the order passed by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order.
I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the revisional court as well as by the learned Magistrate.
When an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed having allegations of the cognizable offence, the learned Magistrate is required to call for a police report. If on consideration of the police report and other fats and circumstances, the learned Magistrate takes a conscious decision that no offence is made out, this Court should not interfere with the said decision until and unless the decision is perverse or based on no material. Here in the present case, the learned Magistrate has material in the shape of police report, in which it was said that the petitioner was called in the police station on the date of the incident in respect of the investigation of the offence, which was registered against his brother and, as a counter blast measure to put pressure on the witnesses, the petitioner filed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
I do not think that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction or he has committed any illegality and, therefore, the revisional court has for valid reasons dismissed the revision.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Rao/-