Dismissed

Smt. Upma Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2019A482/16857/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash orders refusing to treat a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application as a complaint. The Court held that no illegality or infirmity warranted interference and the Magistrate exercised discretion correctly.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing orders refusing to treat Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint is refused.

Smt. Upma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16857 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Upma Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Pandey,Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 1.5.2017 passed by the the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur in criminal case no. 486 fo 2015 (Smt. Upma Devi Vs. Ram Ratan and others) as well as order dated 21.1.2019 (F.T.C.), Court Lalitpur in Criminal Revision No. 79 of 2017 (Smt. Upama Devi Vs. State of U. P. and others).

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that applicant moved application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as complaint on 8.7.2015. Criminal Revision being Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2015 was filed before the concerned Sessions Judge which was allowed setting aside the order dated 8.7.2015 remanding back the matter to pass fresh order. It is next contended that concerned Magistrate again on 1.5.2017 treated the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as complaint ignoring the observation recorded by the revisional court. It is further argued that Criminal Revision was preferred again against the order dated 1.5.2017 passed by the concerned Magistrate which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.1.2019 by the concerned Sessions Judge affirming the order passed by the concerned Magistrate. It is further argued that cognizable offence was made out. There is need for investigation. Applicant being a lady is not in a position to lead evidence before the court. Order passed by the concerned Magistrate as well as Revisional Court both are illegal.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. As per the settled legal position, the Court / Magistrate is not always bound to pass order for registering the case and investigation on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosing a cognizable offence. It may exercise its discretion judiciously and if it is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be appropriate to treat the application as a complaint case then the

¶10

Magistrate may proceed with according to the procedure provided under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. It is also clarified that if report is necessary on any point, the learned Magistrate is competent enough to call for report from the police concerned on given points. Further, it is open to the applicant to raise the question before the court concerned at the appropriate stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶11

The application is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.7.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Smt. Upma Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Upma Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chandra and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman @ Suleman and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Hanswati Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Noor Mohammad Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Usha Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Smt. Moni and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another