Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42699 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt Seema Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant Smt Seema against State of U.P. and six others, with prayer to quash order dated 16.8.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Farrukhabad, in Misc. Application No. 111/11 of 2019, Smt. Seema Vs. Sushil and others, whereby application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by Smt. Seema against accused persons with contention that informant's daughter Shivani was molested by accused Sushil on 15.2.2019 for which a complaint was made by her with police. Owing to this animosity, while Shivani was all alone at her house on 4.6.2019 at 4.30 P.M., the accused did criminal trespass and they abused under threat of Tamancha and outraged her modesty. Upon rescue call, applicant and her husband rushed on the spot, where accused persons beaten her with lathis and made fire with intention to kill her. Instant report was submitted at police station as well as before the Superintendent of Police, but of no avail. Hence application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the Magistrate, which was treated as a complaint. Whereas it ought to have been directed for registration of case crime and investigation by police. Hence this application with above prayer.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument.
Division Bench of this Court in Ram Babu Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; 2001 (43) A.C.C. 50, and Sukhwasi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh; 2007 (59) A.C.C. 739 and Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another; 2001 (42) A.C.C. 459 and Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others; (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171, have propounded that Magistrate has got jurisdiction to treat an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint, but he is not bound to direct for registration of F.I.R. for the same. Hence, above order is well within jurisdiction of court concerned. There was no apparent error or mis-exercise of jurisdiction.
This application merits its dismissal. It is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Pcl