Allowed

Barrister Prasad v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2023A482/12323/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench allowed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. setting aside an order treating an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint where allegations disclosed a cognizable offence, relying on Lalita Kumari guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order treating application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint set aside. Lower court directed to decide afresh within one month.

Barrister Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 12… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12323 of 2023 Applicant :- Barrister Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishesh Rajvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Vishesh Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 02.07.2022, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kushinagar in Cri. Misc. Application Case No. 114 of 2022 (Barrister vs. Gopal Ji and others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., by which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant has been directed to be treated as complaint case.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant clearly discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, however, the Magistrate has erred in law in directing to proceed with the application as a complaint case, without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts. He further submits that in the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. itself, it has been mentioned that the injured had suffered injuries, one being fracture in the thumb of left hand and the injury report has also been placed alongwith the said application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which goes to show that the cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended with vehemence that the court below has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and has ignored the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 .

¶6

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has supported the impugned order and has pointed out that the grievance of the applicant has not gone unattended by the court below. The court below after taking into consideration the entire gamut of the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly concluded to treat the application filed by the applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. The applicant shall still have an opportunity to prove his case before the court below.

¶7

Considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

A perusal of the impugned order shows that no sufficient reason has been disclosed, on the basis of which, the Magistrate has proceeded to treat the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.

¶9

From the record, it transpires that the allegations made in the application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are not only serious, but also show the commission of a cognizable offence. However, the Magistrate vide order dated 02.07.2022 directed that the said application shall be treated as a complaint. A perusal of the order impugned passed by the Magistrate shows that the Magistrate was of the view that since all the evidence required in respect of the incident which occurred on the alleged date can be given by the applicant, there is no necessity of police investigation in the matter.

¶10

In view of the nature of the allegations made by the applicant in the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Special Judge, S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kushinagar ought to have allowed the application and directed the police of Police Station Kubersthan, Kushinagar to investigate into the matter and, thereafter, submit a report.

¶11

Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. provide procedure for registration and investigation of complaint. The same are quoted herein under:-

¶12

" 154. Information in cognizable cases - (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.:

¶13

[Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, Section 326B, Section 354, Section 354A, Section 354B, Section 354C, Section 354D, Section 376, Section 376A, Section 376B, Section 376C, Section 376D, Section 376E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer: Provided further that -

¶14

(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354A, Section 354B, Section 354C, Section 354D, Section 376, Section 376A, Section 376B, Section 376C, Section 376D, Section 376E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a

¶15

convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;

¶16

(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;

¶17

(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of Section 164 as soon as possible].

¶18

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

¶19

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

¶20

156. Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case .

¶21

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

¶22

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

¶23

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned."

¶24

From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the police can investigate into matters relating to commission of 'cognizable offences' brought to its notice under section 154 Cr.P.C. Officer-in-charge of police station has power to investigate U/S 156(1) in such case. Magistrate has power to take cognizance u/s 190 Cr.P.C. on receiving the 'complaint'. Thus the matter relating to section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. relates to power of Magistrate to order investigation by police in matters relating to cognizable offences brought before it through complaint. Complaint has been defined in section 2(d) Cr.P.C. of as follows : "complaint' means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a Police report." Code of Criminal Procedure has given different type of powers to deal with such matters relating to commission of cognizable offences when brought before it.

¶25

A Division bench of this Court in the case of '' Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., 2007(59) ACC 739 " held as under:

¶26

"Applications under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are coming in torrents. Provisions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. They should not be used unless there is something unusual and extra ordinary like miscarriage of justice which warrants a direction to the Police to register a case. Such application should not be allowed because the law provides them with an alternative remedy of filing a complaint, therefore, recourse should not normally be permitted for availing the provisions of section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶27

The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate".

¶28

However, the said judgement does not provide any reason as to why F.I.R. should not be registered in respect of a cognizable offence.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs Goverment of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 . He has relied upon paragraph 111 of the aforesaid judgement, which is reproduced herein under:-

¶30

"111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

¶31

"i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

¶32

ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

¶33

iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

¶34

iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

¶35

v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

¶36

vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The

¶37

category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

¶38

a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

¶39

b) Commercial offences

¶40

c) Medical negligence cases

¶41

d) Corruption cases

¶42

e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

¶43

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

¶44

vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

¶45

viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above."

¶46

In view of the aforesaid, the orders dated 30.10.2019 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kushinagar cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage without issuing notice to the prospective accused persons as they have no right to be heard at precognizance stage. The order dated 02.07.2022 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kushinagar are consequently set aside.

¶47

The concerned court below i.e. Special Judge, S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kushinagar is directed to exercise his discretionary power and decide afresh the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant and to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by this court, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶48

With the aforesaid directions, the present application is allowed .

¶49

Order Date :- 27.4.2023 Jitendra/-

¶50

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Barrister Prasad v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barrister Prasad v. State of U.P. and 12 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

Nadeem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neha Madaan and 3 Others. Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Maulana Abdul Sami and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Nause and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Subhash Chandra Yadva and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another