Allowed

Munni Ram v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2022CRLR/798/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court set aside an order dismissing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court held that the lower court failed to exercise jurisdiction properly and applied Lalita Kumari to direct a fresh order allowing cognizable offence allegations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.01.2022 set aside; lower court directed to pass fresh order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after hearing the revisionist.

Munni Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 798 of 2022 Revisionist :- Munni Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶3

Learned counsel for the revisionist is present.

¶4

By means of this revision, the order dated 13.01.2022 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Ghazipur has been challenged, whereby the application under Section 156(3) of the revisionist has been dismissed.

¶5

As the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected, so in the revision against the said order there is no need to summon the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the case belongs to the Police Station-Birano and both the parties are resident of Police Station-Birano, the property where the incident is said to have taken place also exist in Police StationBirano, so there was no reason to summon the report from the Police Station Dullahpur and in the order it is clearly mentioned that a report has been summoned by the court from Police Station Dullahpur. Second argument on behalf of learned counsel for the revisionist is that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the dispute is of civil nature and to give colour to this dispute this criminal proceeding has been started and on the basis of V.Y.Jones and others versus State of Gujarat and others 2009 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) page no. 996 and V. Suresh Yadav versus Sharifa V. & others 2009 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) Page No. 282 (SC) it was found that in any dispute of civil nature the use of criminal procedure is the misuse of judicial proceedings. On this ground learned lower court rejected the application of the revisionist. It is argued by the revisionist's counsel that if in a civil dispute crime has been committed then certainly the criminal proceedings can be drawn. On these two grounds the order impugned has been challenged.

¶8

So far as the first ground is concerned that the Police Station is Birano and the report has been summoned from the Police Station Dullahpur, the report of the concerned Police Station

¶9

has not been filed by the revisionist counsel, so it cannot be said that this "word Police Station Dullahpur" is typographical mistake or in fact the report was summoned from Police Station Dullahpur only.

¶10

In the absence of any report filed, the revisionist counsel cannot take the benefit of this ground.

¶11

So far as the second ground, is concerned that in any dispute of civil nature if any offence is committed, then it cannot be said that to give colour to civil dispute the criminal proceedings have been started, the present revisionist in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. itself has mentioned that when he was in his field the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 came and started ploughing his field with tractor and in furtherance of their common intention assaulted him with lathi, danda, and spade etc. He was hurled caste based abuses also then he went to the Police Station to lodge the F.I.R. where his F.I.R. was not registered nor his report was registered in the office of S.S.P. concerned.

¶12

Thus from the perusal of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. itself it is clear that cognizable offence is shown to be made out and as per judgment in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 the truthfulness of the incident is not to be seen by the court at the stage of disposal of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as cognizable offence is said to have made out this much is enough for registration of F.I.R.

¶13

On the basis of the findings of judgment (Lalita Kumari supra), going through the facts of the present case, the judgments mentioned in the impugned order are fouond to be distinguishable and the revision of the revisionist deserves to be allowed.

¶14

It is found that learned court has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it properly hence, the revision deserves to be allowed.

¶15

The revision is allowed .

¶16

The order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Ghazipur is hereby set aside.

¶17

Learned lower court is directed to pass fresh order on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after providing an opportunity to the revisionist of being heard again and going through the finding given hereinabove.

¶18

The revisionist is directed to appear before the court below on 11.04.2022.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.3.2022/SY

¶20

Digitally signed by SWETA YADAV Date: 2022.03.11 16:59:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munni Ram v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni Ram v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sheetala and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dharmpal(Corpus) and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Mohd. Mustafa @ Mustafa Vs State of U.P. through its Home Secretary and 2 Other

Brijesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Shimpi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kavita Khanna Alias Kavita Sharma Vs Anish Khanna