Disposed¶17

Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025A482/2795/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application rejected by trial court on 05.06.2024 after invoking Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and calling police report; applicant's revision dismissed 06.02.2025; contested points: treatment of 156(3) application as complaint, pre-cognizance police report, revisional court jurisdiction, wrong provision as non-application of mind; Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 cited by opposite party no.5; matter adjourned to first week of November 2025, undecided.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bharat Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2795 of 2025

Bharat Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ishan Baghel, Nishchal Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Saksham Agarwal

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I for the state-opposite party no.1 and Sri Saksham Agarwal, learned counsel appertaining for opposite party no.5 at length.

¶10

Copy of the rejoinder affidavit has been served on the counsel for opposite party no.5. The same will be filed in the Registry by tomorrow.

¶11

Counsel for the applicant submits that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant was rejected on 05.06.2024. Thereafter, a revision was preferred by the applicant, which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2025. Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards the order passed by the trial court and has submitted that in the order dated 05.06.2024, the trial court has mentioned the provision of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and has observed that the report has been called for from the concerned police under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and thereafter the application has been rejected vide order dated 05.06.2024. He further submits that provision of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. can be invoked only after the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is treated as a complaint, but in the present case, the said application has not been treated as a complaint, therefore, the impugned order is erroneous.

¶12

A482 No. 2795 of 2025

¶13

¶14

He has further submitted that the revisional court has also recorded a finding that the preliminary enquiry was done by the police and the enquiry report has been submitted before the court and after considering the report, the impugned order was passed by the trial court. Counsel for the applicant submits that the revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction as it has to see only the legality of the order impugned, but it has substituted its finding by mentioning a wrong provision of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.

¶15

On the other hand, counsel for opposite party no.5 has submitted that when the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed, the trial court had called for a report from the concerned police, which is pre-cognizance stage. On 04.03.2024, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned passed an order mentioning that the preliminary enquiry is to be done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police in the case and in pursuance of the said direction, the Assistant Commissioner of Police submitted a report on 02.04.2024, which is on record and the same has been considered by the trial court and thereafter the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. He has further submitted that it may be an error of language, but otherwise it is evident that the police report was called for, which is a precognizance stage. It is also settled law that before taking cognizance, the police report can be called for in view of the judgement rendered by the Hon'be Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287. He has further submitted that quoting of wrong provision does not nullify the order. The fact remains that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was not treated as complaint, rather a report was called for from the concerned police and thereafter the impugned order has been passed, which is justified.

¶16

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that he will prepare the case on this issue that even if a wrong provision is quoted, then there is non-application of mind and such order can not survive.

¶17

On his request, the case is adjourned.

¶18

A482 No. 2795 of 2025

¶19

¶20

List this case in the first week of November, 2025.

¶21

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶22

October 15, 2025

¶23

Rao/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Divya Pandey @ Gudiya @ Divya Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Abhishek Pratap Singh ( Ajeet Singh in Fir ) Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohammad Hussain vs M/S, Arafat Developers Private Ltd., Thru. Its Dir. Furqan Ahmad

Jita @ Jagpta @ Jokhna and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramapati Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Narendra Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another