Dismissed¶¶18

Sant Bal Krishnadas v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023A482/32059/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sant Bal Krishnadas v. State of U.P. & 6 Ors., Application u/s 482 No. 32059 of 2023, Allahabad High Court (Rajiv Gupta, J.), 25.9.2023 — s.482 petition against rejection of s.156(3) FIR application and dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2022 dismissed; remedy for police inaction in registering FIR lies in the complaint route under ss.190/200 Cr.P.C. per Aleque Padamsee (2007) 6 SCC 171.

What did the court decide?

Where the police fail to register an FIR despite disclosure of a cognizable offence, the modalities to be adopted are those set out in Sections 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C.; accordingly, even after dismissal of his revision, the applicant's remedies under those provisions remained open in law. ¶¶17

Sant Bal Krishnadas Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185006

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32059 of 2023 Applicant :- Sant Bal Krishnadas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.has been filed against the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Allahabad by which the revision filed against the order dated 30.04.2022 rejecting the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR has been dismissed.

¶6

Brief facts giving rise to this application are that an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant with the allegation that opposite parties have forcibly taken possession of 15 biswas of land notified vide gata no.38 and on raising grievance against the said act and conduct of the opposite parties, opposite parties forcibly committed loot in his temple and committed mischief by fire and threatened him to leave the ashram. It is further stated that the applicant tried to lodge FIR in respect of the said incident, however, the Police did not lodge his report and as such, an application was sent to the S.S.P., Prayagraj to get the FIR registered but to no avail and therefore, an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant with the prayer that a direction be given to the concerned police station to lodge his report and investigate the same.

¶7

4.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the allegations made in the application though cognizable offence is disclosed, yet the learned magistrate has not directed the police to register the F.I.R. and has illegally rejected his application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C vide order dated 30.04.2022.

¶8

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 30.04.2022, the applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2022, which too has been dismissed by the

¶9

Revisional Court vide order dated 09.05.2023.

¶10

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 09.05.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Allahabad, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since cognizable offence is disclosed against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7, who are police officials as well as Senior Government Officials therefore, it was incumbent upon the court below to register an FIR.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that though it is provided that the police official ought to register F.I.R. whenever it is shown that cognizable offence is disclosed, however, in case the police fails to do so, the modalities as set out in section 190 read with section 200 Cr.P.C. of the code are to be adopted as held in the case of Aleque Padamsee Vs Union of India, 2007 (6) SCC 171 .

¶13

"7. Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences's case (supra) and reiterated in Gangadhar's case (supra) the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences's case (supra), Gangadhar's case (supra), Hari Singh's case (supra), Minu Kumari's case (supra) and Ramesh Kumari's case (supra), we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari's case (supra) related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari's case (supra) the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences's case (supra), Gangadhar's case (supra), Minu Kumari's case (supra) and Hari Singh's case (supra). The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari's case (supra) was re- iterated in Lallan Chaudhary and Ors. V. State of Bihar (AIR 2006 SC

¶14

3376) . The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences's case (supra), Gangadhar's case (supra), Hari Singh's case (supra) and Minu Kumari's case (supra). The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to its notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Sections 190 read with Section 200 of the Code."

¶15

Further in Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2023, Rameshwari Vs. State of U.P. and others , this Court has held as under:

¶16

" The disclosure of cognizable offence cannot be construed to mean replication of words or the facts in such a manner as may fit within four corners of an offence defined in statutes. This is a common knowledge that applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may be drafted cleverly and may be dotted with sham assertions or half truths with legal advice, so as to persuade the courts to spring into action. If such a narrow and short sighted interpretation is done, it will be like playing in the hands of unscrupulous litigant. While passing an order on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the court is expected to apply its judicial mind. He is expected to be judicious, discreet and cautious and not to be swayed by mere use of certain words and legal terminology. He can certainly look for substance in the allegations and existence of life in the assertions"

¶17

Thus, it is to be noted that despite dismissal of the revision filed by the applicant, the revisionist still have certain remedies open in law by adopting modalities as set out under section 190 read with section 200 of the Code. Further in the instant case, both courts below have passed a well considered and detailed order rejecting the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which at this stage needs no interference in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶18

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.9.2023/Subham

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sant Bal Krishnadas v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Bal Krishnadas v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kapoor and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rais and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Narayan Vs State of U.P. and an Other

Ashish Vs State of U.P.