Vinay Kumar Pandey vs State of Up and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Vinay Kumar Pandey vs State of Up and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: the orders dated 29.02.2024 and 08.11.2024 were not set aside, but it was directed that the observations in paras 12 and 13 of the order dated 08.11.2024 shall not be taken into consideration by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/concerned court while entering into the merits after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; process of issuing notice to respondent no. 2 dispensed with as the complaint has not been registered in pursuance of the order dated 29.02.2024.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 29.02.2024 treating the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case and the order dated 08.11.2024 dismissing Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2024 call for interference. +1 more

Court's answer

The observations available under para nos. 12 and 13 of the order dated 08.11.2024 shall not be taken into consideration by the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/concerned court while entering into the merits after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

At present no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in respect of the orders dated 29.02.2024 and 08.11.2024.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 15115 of 2024, decided 05.02.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:16335): Petition under Article 227 challenging (i) the order dated 29.02.2024 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur registering the petitioner's Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application (Application No. 1431 of 2023, Vinay Kumar Pandey vs. Shyam Sundar Pandey and Another) as a complaint case, and (ii) the order dated 08.11.2024 of the Session Judge, Bhadohi dismissing Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2024 by which a direction to register the case as a State case was refused. The Court found no prejudice caused to the petitioner by the said orders and declined to set them aside; however, it directed that the observations in paras 12 and 13 of the order dated 08.11.2024 (concerning exclusion of respondent no. 2) shall not be taken into consideration by the Magistrate/concerned court while entering into the merits after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Notice to respondent no. 2 was dispensed with as the complaint had not yet been registered. Petition disposed of.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16335

Court No. - 79

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15115 of 2024

Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Mani Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Ganesh Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present petition has been preferred seeking the following relief:-

"(i) to set aside the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate treated the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner as complaint case and impugned order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Session Judge, Bhadohi by which the Session Judge dismissed the revision of petitioner without following the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court."

At the time of concluding the arguments, learned counsel indicated certain observations made by learned revisional court while adjudicating Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2024 (Vinay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and Another) preferred at the behest of the petitioner since the same has been referred by learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations might be come into the way before learned concerned court at the time of taking decision after recording statement under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and as such process of issue notices to respondent no. 2 is hereby dispensed with since the complaint has not been registered in pursuance to order dated 29.02.2024 passed over the application preferred at the behest of the petitioner under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is having grievances with the order dated 29.02.2024 through which the application has been directed to register as complaint case by learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur while adjudicating application no. 1431 of 2023 (Vinay Kumar Pandey vs. Shyam Sundar Pandey and Another).

The prayer of the petitioner before learned revisional court was for seeking direction in favour of learned court concerned to seek direction for registering the case as State case which has been denied vide order dated 08.11.2024 which impugned the present petition.

At the time of concluding the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, certain observations which are available at para nos. 12 and 13 of the order impugned dated 08.11.2024 has been indicated which is slightly in nature regarding exclusion of the respondent no. 2 from the narration of the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, at present no prejudice caused to the petitioner for challenging order dated 29.02.2024 as well as order dated 08.11.2024, but at the same time, the observations which are available under para nos. 12 and 13 of the order dated 08.11.2024 shall not be taken into consideration by learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/concerned court while entering into the merit after recording statement under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 #Vik/-

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad