CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mahendra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 3 April 1997 · Citation: (1997) 21 ACR 578

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Jain, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 154(1), 156(3)
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 303 of 1993
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 362 words

P.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Amar Saran learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 17.

2.

The revisionist appears to have moved an application u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the police to register the case and investigate the same. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 20.9.91 passed the following order:

S.O. Hathras Junction to register and investigate the matter and report by 21.10.91.

Sd/-A.K. Verma 20.9.91 IInd Addl. Munsif Magistrate Hathras.

A revision was preferred by opposite parties Nos. 2 to 17 and the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh vide his judgment and order dated 23.11.92 allowed the revision relying upon the decision of this Court in Smt. Jamni v. State of U.P. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 28250 of 1992, decided on 2.7.92 in which learned single Judge of this Court held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the police to register the case. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the revisional court the present revision has been filed.

3.

It is contended that the controversy has been set at rest by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Suraj Mal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1993 (30) ACC 81. wherein the Court held that such direction could be given by the Magistrate. The Division Bench further held that in our opinion, even if there was no direction by the Magistrate to register the case, the officer-in-charge of the police station is under legal obligation to register the case for the purpose of investigation in the same way as if it was reported to him u/s 154(1), Code of Criminal Procedure In view of the fact that the controversy has been set at rest by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suraj; Mal (supra), the revision is disposed of at the admission stage. The revision is allowed. The judgment and order of the Revisional Court (Addl. Sessions Judge) is set aside and that of the learned Magistrate dated 20.9.91 is restored.