Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1655 of 2021 Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashwini Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Sri Ashwini Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. This revision has been filed being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.3.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in Application No. 39 of 2021 (Vijay Kumar Vs. Shiksha Malhotra and another) U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., police station - Bishrakh, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
2. Counsel for the revisionist submits that learned court below has rejected the application moved by the present revisionist for directing registration of FIR / registration of complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
3. Contention of the revisionist is that dispute is between revisionist and his wife Smt. Shikha Malhotra with whom his marriage was performed on 30.10.2013. There are other allegations in the complaint namely that respondent was earlier married to one Sri Sanjay Gagneja and respondent misrepresented to the revisionist that she had obtained divorce from said Sanjay Gagneja and also suppressed the fact that she had a daughter from earlier marriage, and entered into wedlock with the present revisionist. When present revisionist discovered that she had not obtained divorce from her earlier husband but her marriage was declared to be null and void. It is also mentioned in the complaint that they have a son, aged about 5 years, from this marriage and they have jointly purchased a flat and an Alto car, but despite providing all the comforts material, respondent no. 2 hates the complainant/revisionist because he belongs to Scheduled Caste category and uses word 'Dhobi' for him and in place of revisionist's surname 'Kanojia' she applies her surname Malhotdra for their son. All these allegations which have been made in the complaint and ought to have been discussed by the learned Special Judge, has failed to take into consideration that an offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out.
4. Learned AGA in his turn submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. It is submitted that at the most, a case of adultery can be said to have made, but looking to the admission made by the complainant himself that marriage was declared to be null and void and this fact is not discussed because she was legally separated from her earlier husband. It is also submitted that none of the provisions contained in SC/ST Act are attributed inasmuch as it is admission that respondent no. 2 has entered into wedlock with the complainant/revisionist after knowing his caste.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the available record, it is evident that Section 156(3) provides that any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such investigation as mentioned above. Section 190 (1) Cr.P.C. provides that (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2), may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence.
6. There is no mention of abusing the complaint in public. It appears that complainant is trying to convert purely matrimonial dispute into criminal case without mentioning any date, time or place of happening of the incident.
7. In the present case, since the revisionist has failed to make out as to how contents of the complaint constitute an offence under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, I do not see any inherent illegality in the impugned order and, therefore, revision fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 S.K.S.
Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Agarwal Date: 2021.07.30 18:38:37 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad