In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant challenged an order treating an Section 156(3) application as a complaint rather than ordering FIR registration. The court held that the order was within jurisdiction and dismissed the application.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order was dismissed.
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. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2 of 2020
Applicant :- Jahid Husain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rishikesh Pati Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
The applicant, Jahid Husain, by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.10.2019, passed in application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., registered as Case No. 918 of 2019 (Jahid Vs. Kashi) P.S.- Hata, District- Kushinagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., was filed with a prayer for direction of registration and investigation as a case crime number but it was registered as a complaint case, whereas a cognizable offence was made out and investigation required by police. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and Others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 .Hence, this application with above prayer.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the very perusal of impugned order reveals that an application was moved with contention that applicant's daughter-victim, was enticed and taken by Kashi, on 20.08.2019 at 10:00 P.M., and this taking was with intention to have sexual exploitation. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge from Sahroonnisha, that marriage was solemnized at a temple by Kashi and thenafter physical exploitation is being made. Subsequently, victim was left her village, he refused to keep her as his wife. Matters were reported at different levels of executive officers, counsels of ministers and police personals. Thenafter, This application was moved. Meaning thereby, nothing was required for investigation because each and every fact was under knowledge of applicant. Hence, in view of law
laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Ram Babu Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; 2001 (43) A.C.C. 50, and Sukhwasi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh; 2007 (59) A.C.C. 739 and Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another; 2001 (42) A.C.C. 459 and Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others; (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171, have propounded that Magistrate has got jurisdiction to treat an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint, but he is not bound to direct for registration of F.I.R. for the same. Hence, above order is well within jurisdiction of court concerned. There was no apparent error or mis-exercise of jurisdiction.
This application merits its dismissal. Dismissed , accordingly. Order Date :- 7.1.2020 S.K.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed an error in treating an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint instead of directing registration of an FIR.
Whether the arguments of the applicant regarding the cognizable nature of the offence warrant quashing of the impugned order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and OthersReferred¶7
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and Others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Ram Babu Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Applied¶10
Ram Babu Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; 2001 (43) A.C.C. 50
Sukhwasi Versus State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶10
Sukhwasi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh; 2007 (59) A.C.C. 739
Suresh Chandra Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anotherReferred¶10
Suresh Chandra Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another; 2001 (42) A.C.C. 459
Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶10
Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others; (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jahid Husain
State of U.P. And Anr
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
