The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the Magistrate's refusal to direct the police to register an F.I.R. The Court found that the allegations indicated a civil dispute regarding land and dishonoured cheques, and the Magistrate's order was based on cogent reasons and proper judicial 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:125650
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2939 of 2024
Revisionist :- Vijay Singh Rana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Brijesh Singh,Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2-The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13 of 2024 (Now Misc. Application No. 58 of 2024) (Vijay Singh Rana Vs. Suresh Kumar and others), whereby the court below has dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C dated 16.01.2024 filed by the applicant seeking direction for registration of first information report against opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
3-Assailing the aforesaid impugned order, main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the allegations made in the application 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, 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.
4-On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State 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.
5-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) CrPC, three courses are open to Magistrate. He may either take cognizance under 190 CrPC or may forward the application to the police under Section 156 (3) CrPC 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.
6-At this juncture, it would be apposite to mention that the word "may" occurring in Section 156(3) CrPC 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 pious duty of the Magistrate to ensure that no case of the former category may go uninvestigated. The Magistrates are thus saddled with a great responsibility to keep such balance.
7-Having examined the matter in its entirety, I find that learned Magistrate also initiated enquiry before passing the order dated 24.04.2024. One of the allegations of the complainant is that two cheques of Rs. 5 crores each given by the concerned opposite parties to him pursuant to deal of sale of land in question have been dishonoured, but no complaint
under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed. Another allegation of the revisionist is that on 07.01.2024, opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 came alongwith 15-20 goons and started vandalizing their school. On protesting, they took Harish away and threw him from the moving car due to which he was injured, whereas no injury/medical report has been filed. The police in the preliminary enquiry found that there is dispute of sale and purchase of land between the parties. The cogent reasons have been given in the aforesaid impugned order of learned Magistrate by observing that there is a civil dispute between the parties concerned and any attempt to settle a civil dispute or suit which does not involve any offence by coercion through criminal prosecution should be condemned and discouraged. The order dated 24.04.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly does not suffer from any illegality. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order.
8-The criminal revision lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed.
9-A copy of this order be sent to opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 for information within a week.
Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Shubham
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate exercised discretionary power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. reasonably in dismissing the application for registration of F.I.R.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
