Court No. - 80
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1941 of 2021
Petitioner :- Parwati Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Present matters under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 passed by Session Judge, Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2019 as well as order dated 06.07.2019 passed by A.C.J.M-I, Ballia under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. P.S. Phephana, District Ballia.
Brief facts of the case are that an application was filed by the petitioner on 06.07.2019 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the A.C.J.M, Ballia and the learned magistrate after considering the entire allegations and material on record directed the application to be treated as a complaint for recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 06.07.2019, criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2019, Parwati Devi Vs. Harihar Nath and others mainly on the ground that the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. discloses cognizable offence as such it would require to direct the police to register an F.I.R. under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and investigate the same. The revisional court after taking into consideration the entire material on record and being of the opinion that the complainant has full knowledge of the entire fact as well as the accused persons and her witness and is able to lead her evidence before the court as such order for directing the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to be treated as a compliant is just, proper and legal and do not call for interference and rejected the revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since from the allegation made in the complaint cognizable offence is clearly disclosed as such it was incumbent upon the magistrate to direct the police to register a case under section 154 Cr.P.C. and investigate the same.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that upon receiving the complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the magistrate 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 for recording the statements of the witnesses under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He 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 her witness can lead her evidence in the court. The view taken by the learned magistrate 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. filed by the applicant, the magistrate in its discretion may direct for registration of an 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 decision of Mohd Yusuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt) and another reported in (2006) 1 SCC 627, Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttranchal 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 magistrate 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 magistrate 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 having full knowledge of facts and material evidence and is in a position to lead the evidence and therefore order passed by learned magistrate as well as by revisional court does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error so as to warrant any interference.
In view of the aforesaid facts this court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in the Matters Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 R