Shiv Murti Yadav and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Ranjana Pandya, J.—This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Application No. 603/XII/14 of 2014, Shiv Murti Yadav v. Rajendra Singh Yadav and others, under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. whereby the application has been dismissed.

Facts in brief are that the revisionist moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate with the allegation that the revisionist is co-sharer with accused Nos. 1 to 4 in land No. 121 area 7530 hectare situate at Mauja Mirapur Sikandara, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Allahabad and all the co-sharers are using the said land. There was a mahua tree valuing Rs. 35,000 for which the accused Nos. 1 to 4 made a fraudulent consent letter and deposited it in the office of accused No. 5 and has obtained fraudulent order dated 17.2.2014 to fell the green tree. When the revisionist came to know about this, he moved objections against the said order and after inquiry, the order dated 17.2.2014 was recalled. After this accused Nos. 1 to 4 again got a forged consent letter prepared and handed over it at the office of accused No. 5 and again obtained a forged permission dated 13.3.2014 to fell the green tree of mahua which was fell down on 16.3.2014 and the accused took away wood of the tree. When the revisionist complained about this, the accused threatened him.

The learned Magistrate, after perusing all the evidence on record, thought that there is no ground to get a case registered and investigate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., dismissed the application, vide order dated 9.7.2014. Against this, the present revision has been filed.

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

In Aleque Padamsee and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:

"5. Section 156 deals with "Police Officer''s power to investigate cognizable cases" and the same reads as follows:

"156. Police Officer''s power to investigate cognizable case.--(1) Any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned."

"6. (4) When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant [can under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay] the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate, after recording evidence, finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and [could] issue process to the accused."

These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees'' Union (Regd.) through its President Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained. The above position was again highlighted in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar and Hari Singh v. State of U.P.

Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the F.I.R. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case (supra) and reiterated in Gangadhar''s case (supra) the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate."

Thus, as has been laid down in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (supra) the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate.

It is settled principle of law that the revisional jurisdiction is not as wide as the appellate jurisdiction and under the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is required to exercise its powers where there is material irregularity or manifest error of law or procedure, or there is misconception or misreading of evidence or where the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised the jurisdiction wrongly and perversely or where the facts admitted or proved do not disclose any offence.

As a broad proposition, the interference of revisional court may be justified in cases (i) where the decision is grossly erroneous, (ii) where there is no compliance with the provision of law, (iii) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence on record, (iv) where the material evidence of parties has not been considered, (v) where the court below has misread or mis-appreciated the evidence on record and (vi) where the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

In totality of circumstances mentioned above, the revision is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, which is accordingly dismissed.