Allahabad High Court
Smt. Longshri vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 29 October, 2012
Bench: Arvind Kumar (Ii)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 192 of 2012
Petitioner :- Smt. Longshri
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Arun Saxena
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Janardan Prasad
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
List has been revised. None is present to press this revision.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 19.4.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Misc. Case No. 193-C/2012 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., by which Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application of the revisionist for registration of the first information report against the opposite parties no. 2 to 7.
From perusal of record, it is clear that Smt. Longshri has moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur alleging that on 25.2.2012, there was a marriage ceremony in the village regarding marriage of Rahit. On that day, opposite parties no. 1 to 4 started misbehaving with ladies of applicant's family. When they objected and raised alarm, other opposite parties no. 5 to 7 also came there and all seven accused persons assaulted Vijay Pal, Banwari Lal Dujai and Mahesh. Due to assault, they were seriously injured. In defence certain opposite parties were also injured during the scuffle Ram Kishun, father of Amit Kumar also came there and stated intervening but from the assault of the opposite parties, he became injured and later on succumbed to the injuries, the applicant went to Kotwali, Sitapur along with injured persons but her first information report was not lodged and being influenced by opposite parties, all the four injured were arrested. After hearing the applicant's counsel learned court below has rejected the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
In the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.,2011 CRI.L.J. 2278 matter was referred to a Full Bench of this court which framed three questions. Two questions are not relevant for this case. Only the relevant question is reproduced below :
"B. whether an order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?"
Full Bench of this Court in that decision has answered the question in para 65 of the decision which is as follows;
"B. An order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."
In view of above principle laid down by a Full Bench of this Court, the present revision against an order by which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against that order.
In view of above, revision is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.10.2012
Subodh/-
(Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.)
