Petitioner challenged dismissal of his 156(3) application alleging property grab by relatives. Court held application lacked specifics and did not disclose cognizable offence, finding lower courts did not act arbitrarily.
Petition was dismissed for lack of merit as the impugned orders did not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
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. - 89
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6380 of 2022
Petitioner :- Yashwant Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri D.R. Patel, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers:
"i) Issue an order or direction to set aside the orders dated 21.11.2020 and 6.6.2022 (Annexure No. 3 and 5 to this petition) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad and learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 3, Ghaziabad, respectively.
ii) Issue an order or direction directing the learned Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate Court No. 5, Ghaziabad to re-consider the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner afresh.
iii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.
iv) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 but inspite of the fact that his application discloses cognizable offences, court below dismissed his application moved under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 21.11.2020 and when he preferred a revision before sessions court against the order dated 21.11.2020 then revision filed by petitoner was also dismissed by the lower revisional court vide order dated 6.6.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 21.11.2020 passed by the magistrate and 6.6.2022 passed by the lower revisional court are illegal as both the courts below without application of mind in routine manner passed the impugned orders. He next submitted that respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are relatives of the petitioner and they grabbed the property of the petitioner but in spite of that court below did not direct the police station concerned to register the case and
investigate the matter and similar irregularity has been committed by the lower revisional court and as the application moved under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the petitioner clearly disclosed prima facie cognizable offences against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 therefore, both the orders dated 21.11.2020 and 6.6.2022 are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that order dated 21.11.2020 passed by the Magistrate and 6.6.2022 passed by the lower revisional court are well reasoned orders and both the courts after analysing complete facts of the case passed the impugned orders and therefore, there is no illegality in both the impugned orders. He next submitted that from the perusal of the application moved by petitioner under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. it appears that it is based on vague facts and no specific accusation has been made against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 regarding commission of any fraud or cheating and in a very general way it has been mentioned that they have entered their name on the property of the petitioner and therefore, in fact application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by petitioner does not disclose any cognizable offence, therefore, there is no illegality in the orders dated 21.11.2020 and 6.6.2022 and the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.
From the perusal of the record it reflects that petitioner moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 with a prayer to register the case against them under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120B IPC but his application moved under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Magistrate on 21.11.2020 and when he challenged the order dated 21.11.2020 before the sessions court in criminal revision then his revision was also dismissed by the lower revisional court on 6.6.2022.
From the perusal of the order dated 21.11.2020 passed by the Magistrate, it appears that court below was of the view that the dispute appears to be family dispute and civil in nature and even the application moved by the petitioner under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not disclose any cognizable offence, therefore, Magistrate concerned dismissed the application moved by petitioner under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and similar finding was recorded by the lower revisional court in its order dated 6.6.2022.
From the perusal of the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by petitioner, it appears that he moved the
application only due to the reason that respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are his relatives got entered their name on the property of petitioner but in the application it is no where stated that how they committed the offence and the application moved by petitioner under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. appears to be based on vague facts and does not even disclose any proper accusation against the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, therefore, I find no illegality in the orders dated 21.11.2020 and 6.6.2022 passed by the courts below.
In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, the instant petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed .
Order Date :- 28.9.2022 Ankita
Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.12 10:35:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable against the dismissal of a 156(3) Cr.P.C. application for registration of a case.
Whether the dismissed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosed cogent facts amounting to a cognizable offence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Yashwant
State Of U.P.
Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
