Court No. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5151 of 2018 Applicant :- Lal Muhammad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anant Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with the prayer to set aside the order dated 24.1.2018 passed by Additional District Judge/POCSO Act, Court No. 8, Etah in Misc. Case No. 229 of 2017 (Lal Mohammad Vs. Anees and others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., P.S. Nayagaon, District Etah by which the application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the case has been rejected against opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the occurrence took place on 15.11.2017 at 5 pm when the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 came to the house of the applicant and had abused and beaten with fists and kicks, his daughter (Amroz). The younger sister of Amroj (Afroz) was tried to be molested, her cloth were torned, dirty video clipping was started being made. This occurrence was witnesses by Gaus Mohammad and the applicant himself. In this occurrence minor daughter of the applicnat had received several injuries. The applicant had gone to lodge FIR at police station, Nyayganvbut but the same was not registered, thereafter, he sent an application to SSP by registered post on 20.11.2017 but even then no FIR was lodged. Feeling compelled, he moved an application before the court, even that has been rejected arbitrarily. He has relied upon In Re: Inaction of Police In Lodging Firs In Offences Against Vs. State of U.P., 2014(1) J.Cr.C. 78, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that in all serious cases, where victim is injured, her statement should be recorded as FIR without any delay. It is contended that despite the above position of law, the FIR has not been registered by police nor the court below has directed the same to be registered on his application moved under Section 156(3).
Learned A.G.A. has stated nothing except that the complainant could have filed a complaint case before court concerned, if FIR was not registered.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Perused the impugned order, it is mentioned in the said order that the applicant had married his daugher Amroz with Anis and soon after her marriage, demand of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- began to be made and when the same could not be fulfilled, the opposite party no. 2 had cut her daughter's hand with knife which resulted in serious injuries to her. On 8.11.2017 he was ousted from the matrimonial house at 10 am. Thereafter his daughter filed a case in Family Court for maintenance on 15.11.2017. As soon as, the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 came to know about this case they harboured enmity towards them. In pursuance of this enmity, on 15.11.2017 at 5 pm opposite party nos. 2 to 4 came to the house of the complainant and had abused his daughter Amroz and her younger sister (Afroz) was tried to be molested. This occurrence has also been seen by witness Gaus Mohammad. The court below has taken a view that the occurrence was not natural and an effort was being made to lodge FIR only with a view to creating pressure upon the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
It appears that the court below has ignored the injury caused to the younger daughter of the applicant. Five injuries are found to have been caused to her in the injury memo in the said occurrence. It was not proper on the part of the court below to opine that the present application was moved for registration of F.I.R. with the view to creating pressure upon the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. In view of above citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is found that the court below committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record properly while passing the impugned order. Any such evidence which is documentary could not be discarded on the basis of conjecture that the said occurrence might have been stated to have taken place with a view to creating pressure.
In view of above, a strong case is made out as argued by learned counsel for the applicant, but before any final order is passed, it is mandatory to hear opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
Office is directed to issue notice to opposite party nos. 2 to 4, returnable within four weeks.
Learned A.G.A. has been provided notice.
Both the opposite parties shall file counter affidavits within four weeks.
List this case on 28.3.2018.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 A.P. Pandey