The High Court dismissed a criminal revision under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, holding that an FIR should not be lodged via judicial order when the allegation was in the revisionist's knowledge and a prior inquiry found no guilt. The petition was also deemed served by mail, validating the merits-based dismissal.
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:169362
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 275 of 1998
Revisionist :- Husn Bano Opposite Party :- Pooran Singh Mehra Counsel for Revisionist :- J.J.Munir Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Case called out in the revised list.
None responds to press this revision on behalf of the revisionist.
The notice issued to revisionist received unserved.
However, no fresh notice has to be issued as the revisionist has left her previous address without giving any information to the concerned Police Station or Post OfÏce. Therefore, when a proper notice has been issued upon the revisionist at her address given by herself would be deemed to sufÏciently served upon her.
Hence, heard the learned A.G.A for the State.
From the perusal of the record, it transpires that in a matter an application of the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. allowed by A.C.J.M-VIII, Ghaziabad, vide order order dated 01.04.1997 against which a criminal revision no. 112 of 1997 was preferred, which was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. The learned A.C.J.M. had allowed the application stating that the matter is serious in nature, hence, the F.I.R must be lodged in the matter.
In the revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge looked into the mater minutely and found that the allegation was also in the knowledge of S.S.P. Ghaziabvad, who inquired the
matter from Smt. Jyoti Baloor, A.S.P.
As per the inquiry report of A.S.P. Ghaziabad, the S.O. concerned had not interrogated the revisionist in isolation and had not molested her with an evil motive. This fact was not in the knowledge of learned A.C.J.M. while passing the order.
The learned revisional court has accepted the inquiry report and concluded that when an inquiry has already taken place, in which the respondent no. 2 had been found to be innocent, there was no necessity to pass an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for lodging the F.I.R. However, the legal recourse was open to the revisionist to institute a criminal complaint against opposite party no. 2.
In M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors 1998 S.C. 128 decided on 4 November, 1997 and in several other cases, it has been held that in criminal cases summoning of accused or order regarding lodging of F.I.R under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C is a serious matter and if a prima-facie case is not made out, generally a person should not be summoned and an order under Section 156 (3) can not be passed for lodging the F.I.R.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that it was not a case in which the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C ought to have been allowed for lodging F.I.R as the matter with regard to the alleged commission of crime was in the knowledge of the revisionist. In such a matter a remedy could be obtained by filing a criminal complaint rather to lodging the F.I.R against the alleged culprit.
In this case an inquiry had been conducted by the S.S.P. Ghaziabad, in which the charges were not found to be true.
A notice was also issued to the revisionist to engage another counsel, but she was not found to be resided at her given
address, thus this Court is of the considered view that the the present criminal revision is liable to dismissed on merit.
O R D E R
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed and the order of the revisional court dated 03rd February, 1998 is upheld. The lower court record be sent back to the A.C.J.M. VIII, Ghaziabad for consignment.
Order Date :- 8.8.2023 Vinod.
(Umesh Chandra Sharma, J)
Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for lodging an FIR should have been allowed given the allegation was in the prosecution's knowledge and prior inquiries found innocence.
Whether the notice issued to the revisionist was deemed served, necessitating dismissal on merits.
Whether the impugned order on the Special Public Prosecutor's application should be upheld.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Anr 1998 S.C. 128 decided on 4 November, 1997Explained¶16
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Husn Bano
Pooran Singh Mehra
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
