Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2649 of 2021
Revisionist :- Mahendra Nath Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahendra Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionist- applicant with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 12.8.2021 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Mainpuri in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2021 (Mahendra Nath Pandey vs. Ravindra and 6 Others), P.S. Kurra, District- Mainpuri, by which application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by the revisionist-applicant, has been directed to be registered as a complaint and to record the statement of witness under Section 200 CrPC.
Brief facts of the case are that an application was filed by the revisionist-applicant on 29.05.2021 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Mainpuri and the court below after considering the entire allegations and material on record directed the application to be registered as a complaint and for recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. vide his order dated 12.8.2021.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted that from the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, cognizable offence is clearly disclosed, as such, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to direct the police to register a case under Section 154 CrPC and investigate the same. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has placed reliance on the judgement as reported in 2014 (84) ACC 719, Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and Others.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that upon receiving the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the court below may in its discretion either direct the police to register the case under section 154 Cr.P.C. and investigate the same or may treat the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and proceed further by recording the statements of the witnesses under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
Learned AGA has further submitted that there is no provision that the Magistrate may not treat the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and make an enquiry by recording the statements of the witnesses under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and looking to the circumstances that the applicant has full knowledge of the facts of the case and accused as well as of his witness who can lead their evidence in the court, the view taken by the court below in treating the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint is just, proper, legal and do not call for any interference.
It is well settled principle of law that in case, an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicant, the court below in its discretion may direct for registration of F.I.R. under section 154 Cr.P.C. or treat the same as a complaint and proceed further by recording the statements of the witnesses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mohd Yusuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt) and another reported in (2006) 1 SCC 627, Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157 and Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2001 (43) ACC 50 (FB).
From the aforesaid decisions, it is ample clear that upon an application received under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which discloses cognizable offence, the court below may in its discretion direct the police to register an F.I.R. or may direct it to be treated as a complaint and proceed therewith by recording the statements under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and in case, if the court below, during the course of enquiry, feels that any investigation is required, he may under section 202 Cr.P.C. direct for investigation to be made by the police officer or by such other person, as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in the present case. The complainant is having full knowledge of facts and material evidence and is in a position to lead the evidence in the court, as such in the circumstance the court below is well within its power to treat the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint and proceed to record the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as in the present case.
In the backdrop of the said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there would not be any illegality impropriety or jurisdictional error in the order of the court below, if instead of directing the registration of the case under Section 154 Cr.P.C., treats the application under Section 156(3) as a complaint and proceed to make the enquiry as contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The impugned order, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality impropriety or jurisdictional error and cannot be set aside.
The present revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Vikram Gupta