Dismissed¶15

Aman Preet Kaur @ Aman Preet Kaur Sanhotra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2025/11754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 174(3) BNSS 2023 preliminary inquiry; Lalita Kumari category 'e'; two-year delay in filing complaint after offence of January 2022; 482 petition against Magistrate's direction for police enquiry and report within seven days; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow; Aman Preet Kaur vs. State of U.P.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

With the offence alleged in January 2022 and the complaint filed only in 2024 (approximately two years' delay, with no steps taken immediately after the offence shown), the case clearly falls within category 'e' of Lalita Kumari, in which the Supreme Court directed preliminary enquiry. ¶13

Aman Preet Kaur @ Aman Preet Kaur Sanhotra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1179

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11754 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aman Preet Kaur @ Aman Preet Kaur Sanhotra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Gupta,Prashant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for respondent State.

¶7

The present application has been filed by the applicant assailing the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.115737 of 2024 filed by the applicant under Section 174(3) BNSS 2023 whereby preliminary inquiry was directed to be conducted by the police and has sought a report from the concerned Police Station within seven days' in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. reported in 2014(1) SCC (Crl) 524.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the Magistrate could not have passed this order. The order has been passed without application of mind. He submits that no reasons have been given by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order.

¶9

He further submits that the applicant is the complainant. The complaint is still pending. He submits that the Magistrate has ample power to seek a report from the police or to direct preliminary enquiry to be conducted or investigation to be conducted by the Magistrate. The present case comes in the category 'e' ( cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily

¶10

explaining the reasons for delay ) of the judgement of Lalita (supra).

¶11

It is submitted by the learned A.G.A. for the respondent State that at this stage the complainant has no locus to challenge the impugned order. It cannot be said that he is a aggrieved party as no final order has been passed in the complaint.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

Perusal of the record shows that the offence is alleged to have been committed in January 2022 and complaint admittedly has been filed in the year 2024. There is approximately delay of two years. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) has directed the preliminary enquiry to be conducted in certain category of cases. This case clearly comes under the category 'e'. Whether there is ordinary delay in initiating criminal proceedings. Nowhere in the complaint or even during the course of the hearing it has been stated by learned counsel for the applicant that as to what steps he has taken immediately after the alleged offence was committed in the year 2022.

¶14

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, so also the impugned order it cannot be said that any right of the applicant has been infringed as vide the impugned order only preliminary inquiry is directed to conducted by the concerned police that too in the light of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita (supra).

¶15

The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.1.2025

¶17

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aman Preet Kaur @ Aman Preet Kaur Sanhotra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Preet Kaur @ Aman Preet Kaur Sanhotra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajeet Kumar Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 or.

Ali Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Administrative Reforms, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Prince Abhinav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kalika Baksh Singh @ Kalika Prasad and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Abhimanyu Alias Abhimanyu Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another