The High Court application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order refusing to direct FIR registration and investigation was dismissed. The Court held no illegality or infirmity existed in the impugned order.
Prayer for quashing the order dated 2.2.2019 and directing registration of FIR and investigation was refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22155 of 2019
Applicant :- Shyam Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sewak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 2.2.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-4th, Jaunpur in case no. 519 of 2018 (Shyam Yadav Vs. Prem Chandra and others).
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the concerned Magistrate while passing the impugned order did not apply judicial mind and has misinterpreted the law laid down by this Court in Sukhbasi and others Vs. State of U. P. reported in 2007 (59) ACC 739 . There was need for investigation. Thus, prayer was made to set aside the impugned order and to direct the concerned Magistrate to pass the order for registration of the FIR and investigation.
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.
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 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.
The application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Sachdeva
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order refusing the quashing application was legally infirm or suffered from illegality warranting interference.
Whether the Magistrate was bound to direct registration of FIR and investigation under the facts and circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sukhbasi and others Vs. State of U. P.Referred¶7
Sukhbasi and others Vs. State of U. P. reported in 2007 (59) ACC 739
Shyam Yadav
Om Prakash-VII,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
