Court No. - 56
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 662 of 2000 Revisionist :- Sangam Lal Opposite Party :- The Station House Officer & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- A.P. Singh Raghava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Taken up in the revised call. None is for the revisionist, whereas learned AGA is present.
This old revision is pending for 18 years but none used to appear for revisionist, hence, heard learned AGA.
An application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant-revisionist against order dated 4.2.2000 passed by 1st Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, whereby application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected with this contention that the Magistrate committed a gross manifest error of law, while passing the impugned order. The impugned order was passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and not objective. Accordingly, police report cannot be a basis for passing an order on the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
From very perusal of the record, it is apparent that an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant- revisionist before the court of Magistrate for directing the police station concerned for making order for registration of case crime number and investigation therein for an offence of harvesting and taking away of crop of the complainant by accused Amrit Lal and Ram Prakash from the field of complainant at Gata Nos. 137 and 138 situated in village Semari Tarhar, P.S. Lalapur, District Allahabad, on 23.11.1999 at 11.00 A.M. and when complainant came to know about this fact, he went on the spot where he was beaten by the accused persons and the crop was taken away. An attempt was made for getting case registered at police station but of no avail then an application was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, but it was not registered, hence, this application for offences u/s 427, 392, 511, 504, 506 I.P.C. was moved before the Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate got report from the police station concerned as to whether any report was registered for the above offences. Police submitted its report along with application of the complainant himself that there occurred no such maarpeet in the above occurrence and on the basis of which the application was rejected by the Magistrate.
At the time of decision on an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has to see as to whether any cognizable offence is made out on the bare perusal of the application or not and if a cognizable offence is made out then the jurisdiction under this section is to be exercised by the Magistrate by way of direction for registration and investigation of the case crime by the police. The report obtained by the Magistrate from the police station is for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any case crime number has been registered on the report of the complainant at the police station as was said in the application that he submitted a report at the police station as well as to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad. Report of the police was annexed with an application of the complainant himself that no such occurrence occurred, hence the Magistrate passed the impugned order whereby it rejected the application. Moreso, none is present to press this revision.
Under above pretext, this revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Pcl