HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1893 of 2005 Petitioner :- Uma Shankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Satya Prakash Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,R.R.K. Mishra Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Case called out in the revised list.
Heard Sri S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The revisionist moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 5 before the A.C.J.M. IXth Allahabad which was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.2.2003, whereby, the learned Magistrate directed the station officer Meja District Allahabad to register the first information report and investigate the same.
It appears that the revision when came to know about the order dated 11.2.2003, challenged the same by means of filing Criminal Revision No. 462 of 2003 ( Urmila Devi State State of U.P. and others) before the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad and the same was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Allahabad and the said revision of the revisionist was allowed on 29.3.2005 by which the revisional court set aside the order dated 11.2.2003 passed bythe learned Magistrate hence, the present revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 29.3.2005.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in pursuant of the order dated 11.2.2003, a first information report was registered against the accused- Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 5 as case Crime No. 76 of 2003 under Sections 419,420,467,468,504 and 506 I.P.C. on 9.3.2003 at Police Station Meja District Allahabad. It has been further argued that in the revision filed by the Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 5 against the order dated11.2.2003 passed by the learned Magistrate, the lower revisional court stayed the arrest of the Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 5 till the submission of the charge-sheet. It was then argued that the police investigated the matter and submitted a charge-sheet against Opp.Party Nos. 2 to 5 under Sections 419,420,467,468,504 and 506 I.P.C. and the court also took cognizance of the offence against the accused-Opp.Parties and summoned them for trial. A questionnaire dated 22.1.2005 to this effect has also been annexed as Annexure- 4 A to this affidavit filed in support of the Revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of this Court on the criminal revision which was pending before the Additional District Judge, Allahabad against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.2.2003. Attention of the Court was further drawn that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused-Opp.Party Nos. 2 to 5 and the Court has also taken cognizance hence, the said revision before the lower revisional court was not maintainable but the learned Magistrate allowed the revision of the accused-Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 5 on erroneous considerations.
The learned A.G.A. tried to support the order of the lower revisional court .
I have perused the impugned order passed by the lower revisional court which suffers from manifest error of law and also appears to be illegal. The lower revisional court has entertained the revision of the accused- Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 5 , who had no locus to challenge the order dated 11.2.2003 of the learned Magistrate, directing for registration of a case against them. Moreover, the lower revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the defence version of the accused. The learned Magistrate has directed for registration of the case and investigation of the same against the accused after having found that the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. discloses a cognizable offence against the accused which was perfectly legal and just in the eyes of law and the lower revisional court committed gross illegality in setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate on erroneous considerations.
It is noteworthy to mention here that the order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the learned Magistrate has already been executed and a first information report has been registered against the accused-Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 5 on 9.3.2003, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure - 3 to the affidavit filed in support of the present revision. The lower revisional court, inspite of this fact entertained the revision of the accused- Opp.Party Nos. 2 to 5 and also stayed their arrest till submission of the charge-sheet, which was beyond his jurisdiction as the accused-Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 5 had a right to challenge the first information report lodged against them as case Crime No. 76 of 2003 under Sections 419,420,467,468,504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Meja District Allahabad before this Court in appropriate forum.
In view of the aforesaid observations, in my opinion, the order passed by the lower Revisonal Court dated 25.3.2003 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same is hereby set aside.
The revision is allowed and the order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.- IXth Allahabad is upheld. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 16.12.2011 n.u.