Dismissed

Purushottam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024A482/7971/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Lucknow dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court's order treating a Section 156(3) application as a complaint. The court upheld the finding that investigation was unnecessary as the applicant possessed full details of the truck's location and the accused.

What did the court decide?

The petition dismissing the revision against the order treating the Section 156(3) application as a complaint.

Purushottam vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61678

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7971 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Purushottam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA appearing for respondent no.1, and Sri Amjad Siddiqui, learned counsel, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶7

By means of instant petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023/482 Cr.P.C. the applicant seeks to challenge the order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, whereby the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the applicant has been treated to be a complaint. Also under challenge is the judgment and order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, in Criminal Revision No.428 of 2023 in re: Purushottam vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the revision filed by the applicant against the order dated 15.06.2023 has been rejected.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the truck which was registered in the name of the applicant has been taken away forcibly by private respondents which truck is now standing at a particular place. He filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which has been treated to be a complaint case and the revision filed against the same has also been rejected.

¶9

The argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that once the recovery of the said vehicle is required consequently the matter should have been sent for investigation to the police and there cannot be any occasion for treating the application filed by the applicant as a complaint.

¶10

A perusal of the application which has been filed by the applicant filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition, vis-a-vis the order of the learned court dated 15.06.2023 would indicate that the learned court after placing reliance on the judgments of Ms. Skipper

¶11

Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State-2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi) and Gulab Chand Upadhyaya vs. State of U.P. and others - 2002 Crl.L.J. 2907 has held that where the complainant is in possession of the complete details of all the accused and witnesses who have to be examined and neither recovery is needed nor any such material is required then normally no investigation is required and consequently the procedure of complaint case should be adopted.

¶12

The aforesaid order has found favour with the learned revisional court which has also rejected the revision.

¶13

As already indicated above, from perusal of the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/complainant, it emerges that the complainant is fully aware about the truck standing at a particular place. He is fully aware about the perpetrators of the alleged crime against him and thus the observation of the learned court that neither recovery is needed nor any material evidence is required to be collected as the complainant/applicant herein is aware about the complete details of the accused and witnesses appears to be in accordance with law. Thus the order of the learned trial court for treating the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to be a complaint does not require any interference.

¶14

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 A. Katiyar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Purushottam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Ram Dayal Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Nooruddin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mintu Alias Sabhajeet and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mintu Alias Sabhajeet and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another