The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders rejecting a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application and verdict. The Court held that the dispute pertains to civil property/mutation matters, involves undue delay, and requires judicial discretion to curb litigation abuse.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4236 of 2022
Applicant :- Mewalal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the order dated 05.01.2022, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Bhadohi in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2021 (Mewalal vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) and the order dated 06.11.2018, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Case No. 1050 of 2018 (Mewalal vs. Bhuleshwar), whereby application of applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the aunt of applicant has executed a Will on 17.11.2001 in favour of applicant and his brother and that the uncle of applicant has executed a sale-deed in his faour but on the basis of a forged Will and in connivance with revenue officials, the opposite party no.2 has got mutation of his name in respect of the land of uncle and aunt of applicant. It was also alleged that in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. it was stated that said Will is forged document. Learned counsel submitted that in view of allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a cognizable offence was made out but despite that the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi has rejected the application of applicant by order dated
06.11.2018. The applicant has challenged the said order in revision before the Sessions Judge, Bhadohi, Gyanpur but the revision has also been dismissed in an arbitrary manner vide impugned order dated 05.01.2022. Learned counsel submitted that a prima facie cognizable offence is made out and that in view of facts of the matter, investigation of matter by police is quite desirable, thus, both the courts below has committed error by rejecting the application and revision of applicant. It is submitted that both the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that the matter pertains to mutation and revenue entry and that matter is pending before the Civil Court. It was submitted that alleged application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with the delay of about 16 years and that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.
6. Law regarding jurisdiction under Section 156(3) is well settled. In case of Sukhwasi V State of UP 2007 (59) ACC 739, after considering the full Bench decision of the Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 and many other cases, the Division Bench of this court has held that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and there is no such legal mandate. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. If the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima-facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. In such case, the Magistrate is fully
competent to reject the application.
7. In case Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others ;2015 AIR(SC)1758, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same."
that when the alleged mutation in the name of opposite party was made or that when he came to know about the alleged mutation. It appears that there is quite long and undue delay in approaching the Court. From perusal of the order of revisional court, it appears that matter has already done several rounds before the Revenue Courts/ authorities and that regarding the dispute a civil suit is pending between the parties. In view all these facts and circumstances of the matter, it can not be said that the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi committed any error by rejecting the application of the applicant. Similarly, the revisional court has also considered all relevant facts and dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. No patent illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned orders.
Order Date :- 19.5.2022 A. Tripathi
Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.05.23 21:06:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Lower Courts committed patent error in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and subsequent revision.
Whether there is prima facie evidence of forgery or a cognizable offence warranting police investigation in a property dispute involving mutation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sukhwasi V State of UPReferred¶11
Sukhwasi V State of UP 2007 (59) ACC 739
Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50
Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and othersApplied¶13
Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others;2015 AIR(SC)1758 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mewalal
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
