Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order rejecting Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. reference, holding the Magistrate was not bound to direct FIR registration in every case.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate upheld.
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 :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2638 of 2022
Applicant :- Baburam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Sharma,Amrita Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Dubey
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Ms Amrita Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for State of U.P. and two others and perused the material placed on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing impugned order dated 05.03.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 493 of 2020 (Baburam Vs. Parmeshwari and others), Police Station Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly, whereby application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant, has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking at serious allegations made in the complaint, learned Court below should have directed for lodging of the FIR and investigation of the offence under Section 156(3) CrPC and, therefore, the impugned order be set-aside and a direction be issued for lodging of the FIR.
The learned Magistrate is not bound to direct the complaint to be investigated after lodging of the FIR in every case. The matter has been largely been discussed in the case of Ram Babu Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2001 (45) ACC 50 and in the case of Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 730.
With the above observation, this application lacks merit and disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022 MN/-
Digitally signed by MAHENDRA NATH Date: 2022.04.28 10:51:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application rejection warrants quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Babu Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶8
Ram Babu Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2001 (45) ACC 50
Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 730.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Baburam
State of U.P.
Parmeshwari
Umesh Kumar
Mahendra Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
