In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the court rejected the appellant's challenge to the Special Judge's order dismissing an application for an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., holding the order legal and devoid of merit.
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. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 116 of 2021
Appellant :- Surendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- U.C. Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri. U.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act against the impugned order dated 04.12.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Saharanpur, by which the learned trial court had rejected the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for lodging the first information report against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
The factual matrix of this case is that appellant was the Head Master in Prathamik Vidyalaya/Poorv Madhyamik Vidyalaya Sahjavi, Block Nakur, District Saharanpur and he moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the court below on 06.10.2020 with prayer to direct the SHO, Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur to lodged the first information report against Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Block Eduction Officer, Block Nakur, District Saharanpur and Pooja Tomar, Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid school opposite party nos. 2 and 3. It was mentioned that opposite party no. 2 Pooja Tomar, who is the Assistant Teacher in the said school (in which appellant is the Head Master) is habitual to come late in the school and go before time. It was also mentioned that on the question of leave opposite party no. 2 Pooja Tomar, became annoyed and misbehaved with the complainant/appellant and used caste related words and also extended threats to see appellant. It was also alleged that when the appellant approached the Block Eduction Officer, Block Nakur, District Saharanpur against the behaviour of opposite party no. 2-Pooja Tomar the Block Eduction Officer, Block Nakur, District Saharanpur opposite party no. 3 came to the school and it was also alleged that opposite party no. 3 also insulted the appellant. An application was moved by the appellant under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was registered and the court below directed vide order dated 27.10.2020 to lodge the first information report and it was registered as case crime no. 356 of 2020 under various sections i.e. Sections I.P.C and Section S.C./S.T. Act
against the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 and it was lodged by the appellant that having annoyed with the first information report registered against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 a false and fake complaint against the appellant and his witnesses and had given a false statement to opposite party nos. 4, 5 and 6. It was alleged in the application that opposite party nos. 4, 5 and 6 have initiated coercive action against the appellant and his witnesses and show cause notice were issued to the witnesses and appellant by the opposite party nos. 5 and 6. Departmental action was initiated against the appellant being aggrieved that this application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was given against the opposite parties by the appellant which was disposed of by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 04.12.2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court had not considered it proper to initiate the proceedings against the opposite parties on the basis of false assumptions and cognizable offences are disclosed from the allegations levelled in the application given under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the appellant and the application given under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected illegally. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there were allegations in the first information report which shows that cognizable offence is against the opposite parties were made out.
On the other hand Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A has submitted that impugned order is totally legal. It does not requires any interference by this court and it was prerogative of the trial Judge to direct for registration and investigation of the first information report.
I heard arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and considered law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Misc. application No.9297 of 2007 , decided on 18.09.2007 and considered law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2015(6) SCC, 287 in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is the prerogative of the trial court/Judge to initiate the proceedings on an application given under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., if the matter seems to be true probable and natural and if the trial Judge considers that the allegations levelled in the application seems to be false and baseless or levelled only to harass some persons, then the trial Court is not bound to order for the registration of the first information report on each and every application given under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Considering the factual matrix of this case this court considers
that the appellant is trying to initiate the proceedings against all the authorities which are taking action against him. The impugned order is correct and legal and requires no interference.
Appeal is devoid of merit, hence, rejected .
Order Date :- 28.1.2021 Vikram
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. requires interference.
Whether cognizable offences are disclosed from the allegations levelled in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2015(6) SCC, 287Referred¶11
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Surendra Kumar
State Of U.P.
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
