Dorey Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri K. K. Tewari, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri H. A. Alvi, learned AGA assisted by Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 8.

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.5.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Khiri in Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2002, by which the revision was allowed and order dated 16.3.2002, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Khiri directing the S.O. of Police Station, Isha Nagar, district Khiri to register the case and investigate the same as cross case of Crime No. 64 of 2002, in the exercise of the powers conferred u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that on the basis of the allegations made in the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C., prima facie cognizable offence is made out and in compliance of the order dated 16.3.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Khiri, F.I.R. was registered on 17.3.2002 at 3.05 p.m. in Case Crime No. 64A of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 452, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C. and S.T. Act, at Police Outpost Khagaria, Police Station Deep Nagar, District Khiri in which the investigation was going on but learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Khiri ignoring the abovementioned facts set aside the order dated 16.3.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, district Khiri. Learned Sessions Judge scrutinised the allegations and assessed the truthfulness of the allegations for which he was not legally permitted and in compliance of the order dated 16.3.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate the F.I.R. has come into existence, so it was not proper for the learned Sessions Judge to interfere in the order dated 16.3.2002 because that order was exhausted and the F.I.R. has come into existence in which the investigation was going on.

Learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 8 submitted that the impugned order dated 20.5.2002 has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case which is a well reasoned order which has been passed after scrutinising the material present on the record. It requires no interference because it is a perfect order.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the opposite parties, I am of the view that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Khiri has passed the order dated 16.3.2002, directing the Police Station concerned to register the case and investigate the same is a perfect order because on the basis of the allegations made in the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C., prima facie cognizable offence is made out. The impugned order dated 20.5.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge allowing the Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2002 and setting aside the order dated 16.3.2002 is illegal because on the basis of the allegations made in the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C., prima facie cognizable offence is made out and the law empowers the Court to see only whether on the basis of the allegations made in the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C., prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. Learned Sessions Judge did not consider properly the existence of the F.I.R. dated 17.3.2002 which was registered at the Police Station concerned in Case Crime No. 64A of 2002. According to the provisions of Section 154, Cr. P.C., the officer-in-charge of a Police Station is under obligation to register the F.I.R. to the commission of a cognizable offence ; it does not require any order of the higher authority or the Court. The powers u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. are conferred to the learned Magistrate to enforce the provisions of the Section 154 (1), Cr. P.C. also. In case any F.I.R. is registered in compliance of the order passed u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. and if that order is subsequently set aside by any court, it will have no effect on F.I.R. and its investigation. So the impugned order dated 20.5.2002 is illegal order which requires interference by this Hon''ble Court.

Consequently the impugned order dated 20.5.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Khiri in Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2002 is set aside.

It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 8 that they have been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the false and frivolous allegations which were made only to save the skin from the offence committed by the first informant Dorey Lal and others in Case Crime No. 64 of 2002. The allegations are made in the counterblast of the Case Crime No. 64 of 2002. In Case they are arrested and sent to the jail, they will suffer irreparable loss, they will cooperate with the investigation and will not tampur with the evidence.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 8, it is directed that the opposite parties No. 2 to 8 will not be arrested during investigation of a case registered in compliance of the order dated 16.3.2002 (Case Crime No. 64A of 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 452, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C., S.T. Act) but the opposite parties will cooperate with the investigation and they will not tamper with the evidence.

With this observation, this revision is finally disposed of.