Revision against Magistrate's order rejecting Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application to register FIR. Court upheld rejection as dispute over compromise deed genuineness and property partition is civil in nature.
The revision application was dismissed and the impugned order was upheld.
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:147132
Court No. - 84
( Item No. 575 out of 785 of list of fresh cases)
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2688 of 2024
Revisionist :- Shekhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Vikas Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2-This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist-Shekhar against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Fast Track Court / Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Case No. 52 of 2024 (Shekhar vs. Neetu and Others) whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by the revisionist seeking direction for registration of First Information Report against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 has been rejected.
3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the revisionist has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 29.02.2024 for getting the F.I.R. lodged against opposite party nos. 2 to 9 alleging inter-alia that he has not taken any electric connection in his house. The opposite party no. 2-Neetu illegally occupied his house and she is using electricity by making a cut in the electric line in front of his house, regarding which he got an F.I.R. lodged under Section 135 Electricity Act against her, in which charge sheet has been submitted against her. Whereas S.D.O. and Junior
Engineer of Electricity Department deliberately making Neetu steal electricity and were not getting the cable laid by Neetu removed. Then he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for getting an F.I.R. lodged against them, on which a report was called for from the concerned police station. On which police submitted report along with a forged compromise letter dated 04.05.2020 relating to house in question showing that the said portion of house came in her share whereas she is not the owner of the said house and is having illegal possession over the same. It is also alleged that revisionist is owner of the said house on the basis of registered gift deed. His signature shown on the alleged compromise is forged. When he mounted pressure to get the said compromise deed cancelled, then the proposed accused persons abused and threatened him.
4-Assailing the aforesaid impugned order, main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are devar-bhabhi. The allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclose the commission of cognizable offence and considering the nature of allegations proper investigation by the police is required after registration of F.I.R., therefore the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the application and direct the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station to register the F.I.R. and investigate the same.
5-On the other hand learned Additional Government Advocate for the state of U.P./ opposite party No.1, refuting the aforesaid argument submits that the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence no interference is required by this Court.
6-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to mention that there is no dispute that on receiving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., three courses are open to Magistrate. He may either take cognizance under 190 Cr.P.C. or may forward the application to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation or he may dismiss the application having baseless or false allegation, therefore such discretionary power ought to have been exercised cautiously with due application of judicial mind only on reasons and not in a routine or mechanical manner. If Magistrate is prima facie of the view that allegations made in the application constituted commission of cognizable offence requiring thorough investigation, he may direct the police to register the case and investigate the same.
7-At this juncture, it would be apposite to mention that the word "may" occurring in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is of utmost significance. It gives the Magistrate a discretionary power to order or not for an investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed in the application. This discretionary power has been given to Magistrate to enable them to deal adequately with both types of the applications (i) the genuine application containing truthful allegations about the commission of cognizable offence, and (ii) the applications having baseless or false allegation, It is the duty of the Magistrate to make it a point that no applicant of later category may succeed in his wicked game. His application need to be dismissed with firmness and boldness. At the same time it is the poise duty of the Magistrate to ensure that no case of the former category may go uninvestigated. The Magistrates are thus saddled with a grate responsibility to keep such balance.
8-Having examined the matter in its entirety, I also find that the concerned Magistrate, while rejecting
the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist has made an observation that from the perusal of police report, it is clear that there is a dispute of partition of the property in question and the said dispute is of civil nature. This Court is also of the view that genuineness of the alleged compromise deed between the parties concerned is a matter of civil dispute. Hence no interference is required in the impugned order.
9-The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 10.9.2024 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application should be set aside.
Whether the dispute regarding the genuineness of the compromise deed and partition of property constitutes a civil matter precluding criminal investigation.
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
