The petitioner challenged orders treating his application for FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. The Court found the impugned orders passed sufficient reasoning and rejected the petition.
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. - 2024:AHC:154897
Court No. - 87
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8026 of 2024
Petitioner :- Narendra Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Supplementary affidavit annexing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed today in Court, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.C. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the judgement dated 03.05.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 6, District Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No. 284 of 2022, (Narendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others) and order dated 25.11.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Farrukhabad in Misc. Case No. 310/11/2022 (Narendra Singh vs. Ranjeet Singh and Others) Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad in so far as treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register the First Information Report but the same was treated as a Complaint Case vide order dated 25.11.2022.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 284 of 2022 which was also rejected.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned court below without assigning any reason has treated his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. It has also been submitted that the said order is silent about the two unnamed persons.
From perusal of record, it transpires that the incident took place on
01.11.2022 but petitioner/complainant was medically examined after two days i.e. 03.11.2022 and the injuries found were simple in nature and duration was about two days. It also transpires that the petitioner has moved the application 156(3) Cr.P.C. against two named and two unnamed persons but no specific role has been assigned to the unnamed accused. Even the relief sought in the present petition is only against Ranjeet and Narjeet.
The Court concerned has passed the order impugned after giving sufficient reasoning to proceed as a Complaint Case. There is no illegality in the order impugned. No interference is required.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date : - 23.9.2024 Puspendra
Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Magitate erred in treating an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narendra Singh
State Of Up And 2 Others
Nand Prabha Shukla
Puspendra Narayan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
