Allahabad High Court
Bhagat Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 March, 2011
Bench: Vinod Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1459 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bhagat Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Rahul Chaturvedi
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Chaturvedi learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
I have perused the impugned order dated 14.2.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chhatta, Mathura, in Case No.11/XII/2011.
Allegation of the revisionist Bhagat Singh is that the accused persons by trespassing into house armed with countrymade pistol, resorted to firing, his daughter Jyoti was assaulted with spade who sustained grievous injury, brickbats were hurled on the house. Allegations unerringly indicate discloser of cognizable offences which touch periphery of an attempt to murder as well.
In such a view, Judicial Magistrate has committed manifest error of law in not directing the police to register offences and investigate the matter vide order dated 14.2.2011. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Srinivas Gundluri and others Vs. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation and others (2010) 8 SCC 206, has observed in paragraph nos. 25 to 27 as follows;
"25. It is true that Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, highlighted that out of the claim of Rs.21 crores, Rs.10 crores have already been paid, the appellants have also laid counterclaim for Rs.10 crores and in such a factual scenario, there is no need to continue the criminal proceedings and prayed for deferment of the same till the outcome of the civil proceedings. However, Mr. Sundaram for SEPCO, by taking us through various allegations in the complaint highlighted that SSVG by misappropriating the advance money for the purpose other than for which it was granted submitted that the Magistrate correctly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and referred the matter for investigation. He also submitted that the complaint very much discloses cognizable offence under Sections 405, 406, 418, 420, 427, 503, 504, 506/34 and 120-B IPC. Whatever may be, we are not here to find out the truth or otherwise of those allegations but the Magistrate is justified in asking to register FIR, conduct investigation on the facts mentioned in the complaint and after completion of the investigation submit a report in the court. We do not find any illegality either in the course adopted by the Magistrate or in ultimate direction to the police.
26. Dr. Singhvi has also brought to our notice that the respondent SEPCO has made another complaint in respect of the same issue before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. According to him, the same is not permissible and the stay granted by the High Court in Crl. MP No.1307 of 2010 in Crl. RC No.893 of 2010 is justifiable. However, we are not expressing anything on the said complaint and it is for the appropriate court to consider about the merits of the claim made by both the parties.
27. In the light of what has been stated above, we are in agreement with the order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High of Chhattisgarh in WP No.3647 of 2009 as well as the order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in WA No.281 of 2009. As on date there is no impediment for the police to investigate and submit report as directed in the order dated 4.7.2009 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba District, Chhattisgarh. Interim orders in respect of all the proceedings including the order dated 27.4.2010 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl. MP No.1307 of 2010 in Crl. RC No.893 of 2010 are vacated and both parties are at liberty to pursue their remedy in the pending proceedings in accordance with law."
In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, it was desirable for the Magistrate to direct police to register FIR and investigate the offences.
In view of the above, this revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.2.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chhatta, Mathura, in Case No.11/XII/2011, is set aside. Matter is remanded to the concerned Magistrate to re-decide the prayer of the revisionist in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.3.2011
rkg
