Dismissed

Shyama Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024CRLR/3846/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking FIR registration. The Court held that the magistrate's discretion was exercised judiciously, noting a lack of injury reports and evidence of compromise between the parties, rendering the allegations false or baseless.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shyama Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136594

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3846 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Shyama Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist-Shyama Devi against the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Fatehpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 112 of 2024 (Shyama Devi Versus Neeraj and others), Police Station Hathgawan, District Fatehpur, whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C dated 22.03.2024 filed by the revisionist seeking direction for registration of First Information Report against the opposite party Nos. 2 and 6 has been rejected.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C dated 22.03.2024 seeking direction to lodge F.I.R. against opposite party Nos. 2 and 6, under Sections 354Kha, 379, 392, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 2/3/5/6 POCSO Act alleging inter alia that whenever she used to leave her house for any work, the proposed accused namely, Neeraj, Prem Pasi, Nanku, Sangam and Sudhir of village used to keep an evil eye on her and taking advantage of the situation, they used to do undesirable act and molest her with the intention to outrage her modesty. On 19.03.2024 at about 6:00 pm when she left her house and was going for some important work, the proposed accused Prem and Sangam molested her and tried to outrage her modesty. On raising alarm her brother, father, mother and sister also came at the spot. Thereafter other accused persons, namely, Neeraj, Nanku and Sudhir also reached there and assaulted

¶9

her and her brother. It is also alleged that she has received serious injuries and the police is harassing her by mounting pressure for compromise. Allegations have also been levelled that the accused persons tore her clothes and disrobed her and looted Rs, 50,000/- of his brother-Mukesh, which was kept in his pocket but the police did not lodge any F.I.R. of the incident.

¶10

Assailing the aforesaid impugned order, main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

direct the police to register the case and investigate the same.

¶14

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.

¶15

Having examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the concerned court below before passing the order dated 25.04.2024 has also initiated an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, police submitted report dated 29.03.2024 mentioning inter alia that in fact Mukesh (brother of complainant/ victim) had obscene conversation on telephone with Savita (daughter of proposed accused Prem Pasi/opposite party No.3), on the said incident both the parties arrived at settlement on 26.11.2023. Due to said reason, Mukesh got an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved through her sister by making exaggerated allegations, whereas no incident of robbery, molestation, assault or abuse took place. I also find that specific allegation has been levelled by the revisionist/victim that she has received serious injuries, whereas there is no injury report. Even no document (medical prescription, etc.) with regard to her treatment has been filed by the complainant/victim before the concerned court below. Hence the said allegations are also primafacie not corroborated from the documentary

¶16

evidence on record. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 25.04.2024, hence no interference is required in the order dated 25.04.2024.

¶17

The criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶18

Copy of this order be sent to the opposite party no. 2 to 6 within a week for information.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Kashifa

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyama Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shyama Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh vs State of U.P.

Sonu Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Khayali Pal vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

First Informant vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

X- Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another