Dismissed

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024A482/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C sought to challenge a Magistrate's orders treating his rival's Section 156(3) application as a complaint and summoning him for trial under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 354 IPC. The court held that correctness of allegations is for the trial court to decide and rejected the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1177

¶3

Court No. - 27

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13 of 2024 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shitesh Jha,Dr. Shailendra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shitesh Jha, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, the learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

By means of an instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has assailed validity of an order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 25, Barabanki in Miscellaneous Application No. 347 of 2022, ordering an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by the opposite party no.2 to be registered as an complaint. The applicant has also assailed validity of an order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the aforesaid court summoning the applicant to face the trial court for commission of offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 354 I.P.C.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that on the application under section 156(3) filed in the court, a report was called for and the police has submitted a report dated 20.09.2022 stating that the applicant has filed an F.I.R No. 456 of 2022 under Sections 34, 323, 354, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C in P.S Masauli, District Barabanki.

¶9

After lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R., some persons from the other side again attacked the applicant's house in the night of 14.08.2022 regarding which another F.I.R No. 467 of 2022 under Sections 34, 323, 386, 504, 506 I.P.C. has been lodged.

¶10

The police reported that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has been filed to put pressure on the applicant. The report also stated that the incident alleged in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C could not be established in investigation and the allegations were found to be false and baseless. Towards the closure of the report, it was stated that no case has been registered regarding the incident lodged in the complaint.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a coaccused Dr. Chandra Kant Verma has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 10672 of 2023 in which an interim order has been passed on 01.11.2023.

¶12

The learned A.G.A has opposed the application and he has submitted that while deciding an application under section 482 Cr.P.C., this court cannot hold a mini trial to adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegation.

¶13

I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

In the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the opposite party no.2 alleged commission of a cognizable offence by six accused persons and it was further stated in the application that the applicant had given an application to the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, but no action was taken in furtherance thereof.

¶15

While submitting a report on this application, the police is merely required to intimate where any case has been registered on the basis of the allegations levelled in the compliant or not. When the application is pending consideration of the court, the

¶16

police is not expected to carry out the investigation into the allegations levelled in the application filed before the court, without a direction to this effect being issued by the court.

¶17

The police may investigate a cognizable offence under Section 156(1), after registration of an F.I.R under Section 154 Cr.P.C but without registration of an F.I.R, the police cannot initiate any investigation. When no F.I.R was registered and merely an application under Section 156(3) was filed, investigation can be carried out under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C only under an order passed by a Magistrate. Therefore, the police has acted beyond authority in carrying out an investigation and submitting a report to the Magistrate that the allegations levelled in the complaint could not be established.

¶18

In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh Etc., 2023 SCC Online 379, the compliant has been registered and the applicant has been summoned to face the trial, he can raise all the pleas available to him and submit evidence in his defense and the correctness of the allegations levelled in the application will be decided by the trial court after the parties have lead their evidence in support of their respective case. While deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this court cannot go into correctness of the allegation and the application cannot be allowed on the ground that the allegations are false.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application lacks merits and the same is accordingly rejected.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 5.1.2024 Preeti.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bablu @ Harinam Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Satish Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another