Court No. - 81
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9753 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kripa Shankar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Viajy Kumar Sharma,Ram Sheel Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ram Sheel Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suraj Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This petition under Article 227 has been preferred for quashing the impugned orders dated 12.10.2018 and 23.9.2019 passed by the courts below whereby an application moved by the petitioner under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. A further prayer is made for a direction to respondent no. 2 to lodge the FIR of occurrence dated 4.5.2018 and not treat the occurrence of 3.5.2018 (NCR already lodged) is same / one crime.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Court No. 18, Jaunpur has been erroneously passed whereby he has rejected an application moved under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. only on the ground that with respect to the same occurrence, an NCR has been lodged at the police station. It is further argued that when he preferred a revision against the said order of the Magistrate's court by filing Revision No. 276 of 2018, that too was dismissed erroneously by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.9.2019 upholding the finding of the Court of Magistrate. It is argued that two occurrences had taken place one in the evening of 3.5.2018 and other on 4.5.2018 in the morning at about 7.00 A.M. both the occurrences have been clubbed together, which is erroneous and therefore, both the orders need to be set aside and a direction is required to be issued to the police to register the case under appropriate sections. It is further argued that till date, the police has not investigated the case despite there being injuries received by the petitioner.
I have gone through both the impugned orders and found that the basis of rejecting the application under section 156 (3) Cr.PC. is that with respect to the said occurrence, NCR was already lodged and nowhere it has been mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate has not ordered to conduct investigation thereof, hence presuming that investigation has already proceeded on the NCR. I find that both the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity. This petition does not have any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is expected that the police would conclude the investigation expeditiously.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 AU