Dismissed

Omwati v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024CRLR/3115/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal against an order of the Special Judge (POCSO) rejecting a complaint. The court upheld the dismissal citing lack of credible evidence, suspicious timing of applications, and the parties being relatives.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed as it lacked merit and the impugned order was found to be impeccable.

Omwati vs State of U.P. and 10 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:119850

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3115 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Omwati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

2-The instant Criminal Revision U/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 02.05.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Bijnor in Complaint No. 85 of 2023 (Omwati vs. Ramkunwar and others) , Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District Bijnor whereby the court below has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.

¶8

3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the revisionist has preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 30.11.2023 before the court concerned seeking direction to lodge first information report against the opposite party nos. 2 to 11 for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act alleging iner-alia that on 23.01.2023, they, in collusion with each other, got a marriage of her minor son solemnized with Ritika D/o Ramkunwar (opposite party no. 2). The said application of the revisionist was treated as a complaint but after recording the statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and witnesses, the said complaint has been dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2024.

¶9

4-Assailing the aforesaid impugned order, main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opposite party nos. 2 to 11,

¶10

adopting different modus-operandi , forcebly got the marriage of minor son of the revisionist soelmnized with Ritika (daughter of opposite party no. 2) but the concerned court below has committed legal error in rejecting the complaint of the revisionist.

¶11

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 in the impugned order dated 02.05.2024, finding has been recorded that both the parties are relative of each other, hence, they are very much known to each other, therefore, the story set up by the revisionist in her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not inspire confidence. It is next pointed out that in support of the complaint, no independent witness was examined before the concerned court below under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶12

6-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.

¶13

7-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)

¶14

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.

¶15

8-Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find substance in the submission of learned A.G.A. that prima-facie, there is no strong reason to accept the allegation of the revisionist. I also find that in the impugned order dated 02.05.2024, the concerned court below also observed that as per the case of the revisionist itself, the application dated 28.11.2023 was sent to Superintendent of Police, Bijnor by registered post on 29.11.2023 but before reaching the said application to the office of concerned officer, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 30.11.2023 without waiting any action, which also makes the incident suspicious.

¶16

9-In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order dated 02.05.2024, which is wholly impeccable, hence, no interference is required.

¶17

10-The revision lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Saurabh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Omwati v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omwati v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kiran Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 5 Others

Rahul Kushwaha vs State of Up and 4 Others

Shekhawat Khan Alias Golok Mondal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Government Lko. and 2 Others

Jairam and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. vs Charan Singh s/o Ganga Sahai

Bhagirath vs State of U.P.