High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging orders declining to register an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., finding no prima facie cognizable offence against the respondent in a road accident case.
The writ petition seeking to quash the orders of the Magistrate and Additional Session Judge 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. - 84
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3478 of 2022
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Pandey Respondent :- Sudhanshu Gupta Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav,Ankit Kumar Sahu
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
By way of present petition, petitioner made prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 27.10.2021 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.7, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 128 of 2021 (Arun Kumar Pandey Vs. Sudhanshu Gupta) as well as order dated 25.03.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Application No. 568 of 2021, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of disclosure of cognizable offence against opposite party no.2, the Magistrate on 25.03.2022 dismissed the application of the petitioner moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. thereafter, when petitioner preferred a revision against the order dated 25.03.2022 then, lower revisional court has also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as, due to mistake committed by opposite party no.2, the accident occurred and in the said accident, the vehicle of the petitioner was badly damaged and after the accident, opposite party no.2 assaulted the petitioner as well as damaged his vehicle, therefore, cognizable offence against the opposite party no.2 is made out and both the orders passed by the courts below are illegal and are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that admittedly it is a case of accident and it appears that in respect of the same incident, the FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 at Case Crime No. 46 of 2021 under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC, therefore, it appears that petitioner only to create pressure also wants to lodge FIR against opposite party no.2 and as, it is a case of accident, therefore, no separate FIR is required and there is no illegality in the impugned orders.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
Perusal of the record shows that the four wheeler of the petitioner was met with the accident with two wheeler of opposite party no.2 and in the accident, both persons' vehicle damaged and as per the allegation made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after the accident opposite party no.2 damaged the vehicle of the petitioner, but admitted fact is that the accident occurred and vehicle of the petitioner was damaged too in the accident and further earlier FIR in respect of same incident was lodged by opposite party no.2. Even from the perusal of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. no prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the opposite party no.2, therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Magistrate and lower revisional court..
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2022 AK Pandey
Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.07.13 11:26:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the orders dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the revision are illegal and liable to be quashed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arun Kumar Pandey
Sudhanshu Gupta
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
