Disposed

Sanju Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2023CRLA/3509/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the impugned order rejecting the appellant's Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application, holding that a court is not bound to order investigation solely based on allegations without considering other factors. However, the court directed the special court to consider a separate complaint filed by the appellant on the same cause of action, adhering to limitation and Cr.P.C. provision

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to file a complaint on the same facts with the Special Court for consideration.

Sanju Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:121136

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3509 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Sanju Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Ram (Rawat),Giri Ram Rawat,Indra Deo Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Sanju Devi with the prayer to allow the present criminal appeal and set-aside the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), for not directing the concerned police station to lodge the FIR against the O.P. No. 2 to 4 and investigate the mater in accordance with law. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to direct the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad to reconsider the Misc. Application of the applicant No. 399/2022 filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 01.03.2023, whereby request of the appellant to get the allegations of F.I.R. investigated has been rejected, submits that trial court has committed grave illegality in rejecting the application from which the commission of the cognizable offences was reflected.

¶9

It is further submitted that it was incumbent on the special court to pass an order for investigation when contents of the application were reflecting the commission of the cognizable offence, thus, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned AGA, however, supported the impugned order.

¶11

Keeping in view the order intended to be passed, the service of notice to the O.P. No. 2 is hereby dispensed with, as the instant appeal is being disposed of only on the question of law.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that the instant appellant, who is a complainant is aggrieved by the fact that the special court has rejected his application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that accused persons are Government Servants and the requisite sanction is not procured and the criminal intention could not be inferred from allegations levelled in the complaint/application.

¶13

I have considered the allegations as shown in the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and is of the considered view that even if the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is reflecting commissioning of cognizable offence even in that scenario, a criminal court is not bound to order the investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as various other factors are also required to be considered by the Magistrate or special court as the case may be at the time of ordering such investigation like necessity of investigation.

¶14

Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is hereby affirmed.

¶15

Full Bench as well Division Bench of this Court in 'Naresh Kumar Valmiki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' reported in MANU/UP3410/2022 as well as a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in ' Gyanendra Maurya Vs. Union of India' reported in MANU/UP/0238/2023 respectively in categorical terms has held that the special court may also treat an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint and a complaint case may also be filed with regard to the offences as defined in the atrocities Act, thus, having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned law reports, the instant appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is finally disposed of with the direction to the special court that if any complaint is filed by the appellant with regard to the same cause of action on which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved special court shall be duty bound to consider the same having regard to the law of limitation and provisions pertaining to taking of cognizance offences as provided under Sections 190 to 197 Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the procedure as provided under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.

¶16

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 S.A.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanju Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Param Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Arif and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.and Another

Navaratan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another