Smt. Shameema Firdaus vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA and have been taken through the record. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 26.11.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Room No. 3 Allahabad whereby the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist was treated as complaint and proceeded to record the statement of the revisionist u/s 200 Cr.P.C.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was married with revisionist no.3 Farhjan Mahboob Kidwai on 26.12.2010. The in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage. They were torturing the victim for fetching more dowry. The parents of the victim could not fulfil the demand for dowry made by the in-laws thus the victim was ousted from her matrimonial house on 10.9.2011 after inflicting severe assault. The victim was medically examined on15.9.2011 in the government hospital. The victim had approached to the police authorities but no first information report was lodged by them thus she moved application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as complaint following the decisions of this Court and the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Baboo Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others 2001 (43) ACC 50 (FB), Chandrika Singh Vs. State 531 (Criminal Revision No. 1667 of 06), Joseph Madhuri & others Vs. Swami Sachchidanand (2001) Suppl. ACC 957 and Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan and others 2008 (1) C.A.R. Page 112 and proceeded to take cognizance u/s 190 Cr.P.C. and directed for recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The revisionist who is a newly wedded lady is facing untold hardship and privation on account of inhuman and barbarous activities of the opposite parties. The interest of the revisionist has gravely been prejudiced on account of the order passed by the court below treating her application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as complaint.

Learned AGA on the other hand contended that the order passed by the court below is in accordance with law. The court below may proceed with the matter merely on the basis of the averments made in the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The court below may not sift or examine the material without recording the statement u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Having considered the rival submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not see any ground to pass any order warranting interference in the proceedings pending before the court below. The court below is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law without being influenced/prejudice by the order of this court. This revision is disposed of as above.