Rewards court dismissed revision challenging Special Judge's order treating Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application as complaint case in caste atrocity matter, finding no illegality.
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. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3204 of 2021
Revisionist :- Geeta Deivi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya,Suresh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri D.K. Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Phool Chandra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.
The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jaunpur in Case No. 161 of 2021 (Geeta Devi Vs. Prasiddha Narayan Dubey and others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereby the learned court below treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist as complaint case.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the purposes to lodge FIR against opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 and from the perusal of the medical examination report as well as the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is clear that cognizable offence is made out against them and it is a case, in which investigation is required. He further contended that by treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist as complaint case, learned court below committed grave error of law.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 17.09.2021, as learned court below was fully empowered to treat the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint, therefore, present revision is liable to be dismissed.
The impugned order dated 17.09.2021 shows that learned court below after perusal of the record and by applying his judicial mind arrived at the conclusion that in the present case there is no need to pass a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging the FIR against the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, therefore, learned court below treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint, which is totally under his jurisdiction and in any manner it cannot be said that the learned
court below either committed any illegality of law or transgress his limit.
I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.09.2021, therefore, the present revision is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 4.12.2021 AK Pandey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Special Judge committed error in law by treating application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case instead of directing investigation.
Whether Learned Special Judge exercised jurisdiction correctly in not passing direction for FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Geeta Deivi
State Of U.P.
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
