Petitioner sought quashing of orders rejecting his Section 156(3) CrPC application for FIR registration over alleged assault and threats. Police report found no cognizable offence. The High Court found the Magistrate gave cogent reasons and dismissed the Section 482 petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 7
2024:CGHC:31524
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2253 of 2023
R. L. Sharma S/o Late Ratiram Sharma Aged About 71 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, In-front of Old Age Home, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
... Respondents
| For Petitioner | Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent No.1 | Mr. Mayyur Khandelwal, PL |
| For Respondent No.2 | Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate. |
SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board
20/8/2024
2 / 7
20.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Raipur in unregistered criminal complaint has been affirmed.
3 / 7
he moved an application under Section 156 (3) before the learned Magistrate for the purpose of lodging FIR and investigation of allegations mentioned in application under Section 156 (3) CrPC. Allegations made in application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. constitute prima facie a cognizable offence, but learned Magistrate has not considered the entire facts and law in correct perspective and the rejected application of applicant by impugned order in a cursory and mechanical manner without assigning appropriate reasons. While rejecting the application filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC submitted on behalf of the petitioner, learned Magistrate has committed manifest error of law as prima facie cognizable offences were made out from perusal of the allegations made in application and therefore, the learned Magistrate was legally bound, in the ordinary course, to allow said application and get the matter investigated after due registration of F.I.R. It is well settled that if cognizable offence is made out then, the Magistrate is under obligation to direct the police to lodge an FIR. Thus, patent illegality has been committed by learned Magistrate. Learned revisional Court also dismissed criminal revision preferred by petitioner by the order impugned without considering relevant facts and law. Hence, both the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.
4 / 7
out in the impugned orders. He further submits that even if the case of complainant/ petitioner is taken on its face, commission of cognizable offence is not emerging, therefore, no illegality or perversity has been committed by the Magistrate. In the order impugned, the learned Magistrate has given sufficient reason as to why direction under Section 156 (3) CrPC is not to be issued. The learned Magistrate has not found clear material to proceed against the respondents herein. The revisional Court has also not committed any error in affirming the order of the learned Magistrate.
'26 . At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156 (3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own
5 / 7
whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigation takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
6 / 7
7 / 7
has come on record, does not support the case set-up by petitioner in his application under Section 156 (3) CrPC as the material available in record of trial Court indicates that relation of complainant with the local people in vicinity is not cordial and complaint is made against him for causing nuisance / obstruction in performance of religious function.
Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge
J/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction under Section 156(3) CrPC should be issued to register and investigate the petitioner's complaint, given the Magistrate's rejection and the revisional court's affirmation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Priyanka Shrivastava vs. State of UPRelied on¶8
(2015) 6 SCC 287 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
R. L. Sharma
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.)
Ajit Kukreja
Shiv
Arvind Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
