High CourtsSingle Bench

Shyam Lal Son and Others vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 5 August 2010 · Citation: (2011) 1 Crimes 466 : (2011) 1 DMC 255

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C. Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 150(3), 156(3) · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 323, 498A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 3034 of 2010
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

10 paragraphs · 666 words

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Mr. Ali Hasan, learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the state.

2.

The instant revision is directed against the order dated 20.6.2010 passed by A.C.J.M.-III, Jaunpur in criminal misc. case No. 275 of 2010, Ranjeet Yadav v. Shyam Lal and Ors. whereby the application u/s 150(3), Code of Criminal Procedure filed by opposite party No. 2 Ranjeet Yadav, the complainant, was allowed and the concerned Station Officer was directed to register the F.I.R. and investigate the matter.

3.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that though both the parties resided at Goa, but they are originally residents of District Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh. The allegations of harassment and mal-treatment of the wife of revisionist No. 6 relate to incident, which took place at Goa and the Magistrate at Jaunpur had no jurisdiction to pass an order u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure It was further submitted that the Magistrate has not carefully considered the contents of the application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure otherwise the factum of lack of jurisdiction would have come to his knowledge.

4.

Learned A.G.A. submitted that both the parties originally belong to District Jaunpur. The complainant is the cousin brother of the victim Kavita Devi, the wife of revisionist No. 6. Kavita Devi used to live with her husband at Goa, but on 19.5.2010, to avoid Goa Police, the accused persons brought Kavita to their ancestral place in Parahit, P.S. Machhlishahar, District Jaunpur. On 21.5.2010, the victim was beaten and left at Khushapur Tiraha in Haiderpur Bazar. She was medically examined on 22.5.2010 and application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure was moved on 28.6.2010.

5.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (XLIII) 2001 ACC 50, wherein it was held that on receipt of a complaint, the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the allegations in the complaint. He may not at once proceed to take cognizance, but also may order it to go to the police station for being registered and investigated and the order must indicate application of mind.

6.

I have perused the copy of the application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure The victim was brought by the accused persons to Parahit, P.S. Machhlishahar, District Jaunpur on 21.5.2010 and on the same day she was beaten and left at Haiderpur Bazar from where she came to her cousin brother''s house. Allegedly the incident look place within District Jaunpur and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order recites that in the application; allegations of demand of dowry, harassment by husband and his family members, beating, etc. have been made. Mention of injury report is also there. Though, the Magistrate did not say so that prima facie cognizable offence is made out, but the substance of allegations made in the application has been narrated in the order, which clearly indicates commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, I.P.C. and Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act. All offences, except Section 323, I.P.C. are cognizable offences, therefore, Magistrate was well within his authority to order investigation by police.

7.

It will not be out of place to mention that the revisionists are accused in the case. Prospective accused have no right to challenge an order passed by the Magistrate u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure directing the registration of F.I.R. and investigation.

8.

In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure discloses commission of prima facie offence and the Magistrate has rightly ordered registration of F.I.R. and investigation.

9.

Revision at the instance of prospective accused is not maintainable and is accordingly rejected.

10.

It will be open to the revisionist to file a writ petition for quashing the F.I.R. after the same has been registered at the police station.