Dismissed

Bachche Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023A482/42083/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a Judicial Magistrate's order. The High Court held that the magistrate was not illegal in treating the application as a complaint and noted that the allegation of forgery requires inquiry, which the magistrate could order under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The application for quashing was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bachche Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42083 of 2022 Applicant :- Bachche Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

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

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶4

By means of this application, the prayer is made to quash the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 26, Azamgarh in applicaton no. 154 of 2022, Bachche lal Vs.Ram Jiyawan and others, under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., police station Gambhirpur District Azamgarh.

¶5

By the impugned order, learned Magistrate treated the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.

¶6

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that to bring all the facts on record, the investigation of the case is necessary. It is also submitted that who did this forgery and prepared the documents in the name of the opp. party no. 2 is a matter of investigation, which can only be done by the police, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer and submitted if after the statement under section 202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate finds necessary, he could make order for investigation, so there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it is found that as per the FIR, the opp. party no. 2 Ram Jiyawan in connivance with rest co accused persons prepared forged documents regarding his parentage and claims himself to be the brother of the applicant. This version of the applicant shows that he has full knowledge regarding the forgery done by the accused persons. As the accused Ram Jiyawan belongs to different district, the Magistrate shall direct for inquiry, otherwise also the Magistrate has power of inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., if he considers it necessary. There is no illegality in the impugned order

¶9

The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant have no force. The application is liable to be rejected. It is hereby rejected.

¶10

Order Date :- 4.4.2023 Gss

¶11

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bachche Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bachche Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mithai Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Javed Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhote Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishalpuri and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rampal Yadav and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another