Applicant sought Section 482 CrPC interference against rejection of his Section 156(3) CrPC application, alleging cognizable offence disclosure per Lalita Kumari. The Magistrate had found unexplained four-month delay and counter-blast motive. The High Court upheld the findings and dismissed the application.
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:152898
Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21146 of 2024
Applicant :- Raees Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Shishir Tandon, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
Applicant-Raees Ahmad has filed this application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order dated 01.06.2024, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case No.900 of 2024 (Raees Ahmad Vs. Idris Ahmad and Others), whereby application under Section 156 (3) CrPC filed by applicant has been rejected.
Record shows that applicant-Raees Ahmad filed an application dated 04.04.2024 under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Upon receipt of aforementioned application, the concerned Magistrate called for a police report from the concerned police station. The said order was complied with and a police report was submitted. Upon receipt of police report, the concerned Magistrate proceeded to examine and evaluate the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC. Having undertaken the aforesaid exercise in the light of above, the jurisdictional Magistrate denuded that application under Section 156 (3) CrPC has been filed by applicant with a delay of four months and, secondly, as a counter blast to the criminal proceedings which have already been initiated against applicant. By recording above findings, the jurisdictional Magistrate came to the conclusion that no good ground is made out to allow the application. Accordingly, be means of the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 aforementioned application under Section 156 (3) CrPC filed by applicant was rejected.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 01.06.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor applicant has now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 CrPC.
Mr. Shishir Tandon, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the order impugned in present application is manifestly
illegal and arbitrary, therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. In furtherance to the aforesaid submission, he invited the attention of Court to the application dated 04.04.2024 filed by applicant before court below, copy of which is on record as Annexure-'2' to the affidavit filed in support of this application. With reference to above, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that upon perusal of the said application, commission of a cognizable offence is clearly disclosed therefore, in view of above and the law laid down by five Judges' Bench of Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & Others, AIR 2014 SC 187 , the jurisdictional Magistrate had no other option but to allow the application. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the view taken to the contrary by court below cannot be sustained. As such, court below has committed a legal error in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by applicant. Consequently, the order impugned in present application is liable to be set aside by this Court.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that the order impugned in present application is perfectly just and legal. Consequently, the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Learned A.G.A. further submits that subsequent to the aforementioned five Judges' Bench judgement of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) , a two Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 has held that jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC is not to be exercised in a routine manner. The Courts are required to exercise more care, caution and circumspection while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC. It is in the light of above, court below has delved into the facts and circumstances of the case meticulously and on basis thereof has passed the order impugned.
According to the learned A.G.A., in case there is an unexplained delay in lodging of first information report that itself is a very good ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The said view has been taken by the Supreme Court in P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578; P. Rajagopal and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 5 SCC 403 (paragraph 8); Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Anr. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2022) 15 SCC 164 and Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) 2 SCC 176 .
Learned A.G.A. further submits that the Apex Court in the case of Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine 938 , has held that there was a delay of 39 days in lodging the
first information report but since even that delay in lodging the first information report which was of a small period was not sufficiently explained, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings. Drawing parallel with the facts and circumstances of the present case with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as noted above, the learned A.G.A. contends that there is an unexplained delay of four months in filing the application therefore, in view of above no illegality has been committed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in passing the order impugned.
Learned A.G.A. further contends that it is an undisputed fact that criminal prosecution was already initiated against applicant. The jurisdictional Magistrate upon evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the accompanying police report returned a finding that present case has been engineered as a counter blast to the same. It is well settled that no criminal prosecution can be sustained in case it has been engineered to wreak vengeance. Reference is made to the judgements of the Apex Court in Eicher Tractor Limited and Others Vs. Harihar Singh and Another, (2008) 16 SCC 763 and Mohammad Wajid and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 . On the above conspectus, he therefore contends that no illegality has been committed by court below in passing the order impugned. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.
When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record this Court finds that the jurisdictional Magistrate has rejected the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC filed by applicant on the basis of clear and cogent findings. The findings so returned by the concerned Magistrate could not be dislodged by the learned counsel counsel for applicant as being illegal, perverse or erroneous. It is well settled that if the findings could not be dislodged the conclusion cannot be altered. Thus, court below while passing the order impugned has neither committed a jurisdictional error nor the court below has exercised it's jurisdiction with material irregularity so as to vitiate the order impugned and warrant interference by this Court.
In view of the discussion made above, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 19.9.2024. Rks.
Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate rightly rejected the applicant's Section 156(3) CrPC application citing four months' delay and counter-blast motive.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 482 CrPC with the order dated 01.06.2024.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & OthersReferred
AIR 2014 SC 187 · Who else cites this
Priyanka Srivastava & Another Vs. State of U.P. & OthersRelied on
(2015) 6 SCC 287 · Who else cites this
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on
(2002) 4 SCC 578 · Who else cites this
P. Rajagopal and Others Vs. The State of Tamil NaduRelied on
(2019) 5 SCC 403 · Who else cites this
Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Anr. Vs. The State of Tamil NaduRelied on
(2022) 15 SCC 164 · Who else cites this
Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on
(2024) 2 SCC 176 · Who else cites this
Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and OthersRelied on
2024 SCC OnLine 938 · Who else cites this
Eicher Tractor Limited and Others Vs. Harihar Singh and AnotherRelied on
(2008) 16 SCC 763 · Who else cites this
Mohammad Wajid and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersRelied on
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Raees Ahmad
State of U.P.
Idris Ahmad
Others
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
