The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the trial court's rejection of an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Finding no prima facie evidence of the alleged payment of illegal gratification, the court held the appeal devoid of merits.
The appeal against the order rejecting the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178667
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6755 of 2023
Appellant :- Geeta Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manvendra Singh,Anand Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjai Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opp. party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By moving this appeal, the prayer is made to set aside the order dated 1.5.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sidharthnagar in Cr. Misc. Case No. 214 of 2022, Geeta Devi Vs. Subhash Pandey, police station Sidharthnagar, District Sidharthnagar whereby the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the appellant was rejected by the trial court.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that the order dated 20.12.2022 has not been complied with and there is no such order dated 20.12.2022 in the file, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.
Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant is habitual of filing such application. Previously also she has made a complaint on I.G.R.S. portal against the opp. party no. 2. The matter was ended in compromise. The compromise dated 20.12.2017 is appended at page '9' of the counter affidavit. Lalji Pandey, the husband of the appellant, is very close to one Shyam Sundar Pandey who is rival of the opp. party no. 2, who is habitual in giving applications against the opp. party no. 2 in police station and before other authorities. Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 placed before the court the report of police station concerned whereby no evidence could be found regarding the allegation raised against the opp. party no.2 by the appellant.
From the perusal of the record, it is found that there is no order dated 20.12.2022 in the case but if we go through the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the appellant, it is mentioned therein that on
the pretext of providing a job to the son of the appellant, the opp. party no. 2 is said to have received Rs. 25000/ on 17.8.2021, Rs. 30,000/- on 31.8.2021 and Rs. 15000/- on 15.9.2021. Thus, total Rs. 70,000/- have been paid by the appellant. Though the statements of account is filed by the appellant which confirms only the withdrawal of Rs. 25000/- and Rs. 30,000/- on the mentioned dates from the account of the appellant but mere withdrawal of the amount does not prove that this amount was paid to the opp. party no. 2. Moreover, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 15.9.2021 alleged to have been paid to opp. party no. 2 is not shown to be withdrawn from any account of the appellant. The appellant is said to have given an illegal gratification to the opp. party no. 2 for arranging a service/ job for her son. The appellant could not place before the court any prima facie evidence that the appellant had paid this amount of Rs. 70,000/- to the opp. party no. 2. Previously also the parties had a dispute between them which ended in the compromise. Thus the version of the application of the appellant appears to be suspicious. The appellant is said to have paid illegal gratification to the opp. party no. 2 which shows that the appellant herself has not come in the court with clean hands.
The court does not find any ground to get register an FIR on the basis of application made by the appellant hence the order dated 1.5.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sidharthnagar in Cr. Misc. Case No. 214 of 2022, Geeta Devi Vs. Subhash Pandey, police station Sidharthnagar, District Sidharthnagar need not to be set aside. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
It is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Gss
Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the appellant should be registered as an FIR.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Geeta Devi
State of U.P.
Subhash Pandey
Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
