Dismissed¶17

Smt. Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 May 2023CRLA/2094/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application treated as complaint; refusal to order investigation; Magistrate duty bound to assess necessity of investigation, not bound to investigate every case; Special Court SC/ST Act Kannauj; cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by SC/ST Special Court; Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act appeal; Complaint Case No. 600 of 2022; Smt. Sarita Devi vs. Sudhir Kumar Dubey; Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj; appeal dismissed; neutral citation 2023:AHC:112064; decided 22.5.2023.

What did the court decide?

No illegality is found in the impugned order whereby the appellant's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as a complaint; the impugned order does not warrant interference. ¶17

Smt. Sarita Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court/Special Court committed a manifest illegality in rejecting the appellant's request for investigation and treating her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

No illegality is found in the impugned order whereby the appellant's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as a complaint; the impugned order does not warrant interference.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Magistrate or Special Court considering a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application is duty bound only to assess the necessity of investigation; it is not a compulsion to order investigation in each and every case wherein cognizable offences emerge from the contents of the application.

¶14

Key takeaways

Adopting the view of the Division Benches of this Court which the judgment relies upon, a Special Court dealing with offences under the SC/ST Act may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and treat an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Allahabad High Court, Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.) challenging the order dated 18.01.2023 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj in Complaint Case No. 600 of 2022, whereby the appellant's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as a complaint and her request for investigation rejected. Held: the Magistrate/Special Court is duty bound only to assess the necessity of investigation and is not compelled to order investigation in each and every case disclosing cognizable offences; a Special Court seized of SC/ST Act offences may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and treat a Section 156(3) application as a complaint. No illegality found in the impugned order; appeal dismissed as lacking merit. Reliance placed on Priyanka Srivastava, Mohd. Yousuf and Aleque Padamsee (Apex Court), Ram Babu Gupta (Full Bench) and Sukhwasi, Naresh Kumar Valmiki and Gyanendra Maurya (Division Benches, Allahabad High Court).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112064

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2094 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Sarita Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Ranjan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajeev Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Alok Ranjan Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Nitin Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rajeev Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant namely Smt. Sarita Devi with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj in Complaint Case No. 600 of 2022 (Smt. Sarita Devi vs. Sudhir Kumar Dubey), Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 18.01.2023, whereby the application moved by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated by the Special Court as complaint, vehemently submits that the Trial Court/Special Court had committed manifest illegality in rejecting the request of the appellant for investigation of the allegations mentioned therein and by treating the same as complaint and the order whereby the request of the appellant to get the allegations investigated is rejected and treated as complaint is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned A.G.A on the other hand submits that no illegality has been committed by the Special Court in passing the impugned order, as the duty of the Special Court was to assess the necessity of investigation and it is not so that in each and every case the Special Court or the Magistrate is bound to order for investigation.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court passed in Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. reported in MANU/UP/0861/2001 as well as the Division Bench judgment of

¶11

this Court in Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. & others; MANU/UP/1115/2007: ACC 2007 (59) 739.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that no illegality or to say any irregularity has been committed by the Special Court and, thus, no interference is required in the impugned order.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that by passing the impugned order the application moved by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as complaint by the Special Court. The only grievance of the appellant which appears to be that, he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same has been treated as complaint by passing the impugned order and order for investigation has not been passed.

¶14

The law with regard to the manner in which an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is to be dealt with is now no more res integra and the same has been settled by various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court, in this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Court in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.; MANU/SC/0344/2015 : AIR 2015 SC 1758 and in Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another; MANU/SC/8888/2006 : (2006) 1 SCC 627, Aleque Padamsee & others vs. Union of India (UOI) (2007) 6 SCC 171, as well as Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. reported in MANU/UP/0861/2001 as well as the Division Bench Judgement of this Court Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. & others; MANU/UP/1115/2007: ACC 2007 (59) 739 may be recalled, wherein it is provided that applications under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. are now coming in bulk and the Magistrate while considering the plea for investigation is duty bound to assess the necessity of investigation and it is not a compulsion for the Magistrate or Special Court to order for such investigation in each and every case wherein the commission of cognizable offences is emerging from the contents of application moved under Section 153(3) Cr.P.C..

¶15

Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court in 'Naresh Kumar Valmiki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' reported in MANU/UP3410/2022 as well as in ' Gyanendra Maurya Vs. Union of India' reported in MANU/UP/0238/2023, have opined that the Special Court with regard to the offences committed under S.C./S.T. Act may also take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may

¶16

also treated as complaint.

¶17

Thus, having regard to the law mentioned herein before as well as the peculiar factual matrix of this case, I do not find any illegality so far as the impugned order is concerned. In result, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.5.2023 Praveen

¶19

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

Smt. Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Hari Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Sardar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ankit Agrahari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Dixit @ Ashwani Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parshuram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Muktamani Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another