Rambabu Yadav vs The State Of U.P.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1685 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 53
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5004 of 2003
 

 
Applicant :- Rambabu Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Sinha
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,H.P. Singh,Sunil Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.

In the revised call, learned counsel for the applicant and counsel for the informant are not present. Learned AGA is present for the State.

This 482 Cr.P.C. Application was filed in 2003, eleven years ago by the applicant Rambabu Yadav, who has prayed for quashing of the proceedings initiated by Arvind Kumar, respondent no. 2 under sections 406, 420 I.P.C. in the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, Bulandshahar. The application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent no. 2 seeking direction of the Court to the SHO, P.S. Siyana, Bulandshahar to register the FIR and take action. Applicant is a proposed accused in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the matter of registration of FIR, an accused has got no right of hearing. Power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is a pre-cognizance stage where the Magistrate does not take cognizance. He is approached only  with a prayer to direct the police to register the FIR and investigate the case. The plenary power of the Magistrate is to direct the police to register the crime and investigate the same. An accused at that stage has got no right of hearing. It is preposterous to cogitate that in matter of registration of FIR, an accused has got a right of hearing as to whether an FIR against him should be registered or not? Exercise of power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is between the victim and the Court.

Moreover, in this case, accused applicant had already filed a revision before Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar. He has withdrawn the aforesaid revision on his own volition on 24.6.2003 as is clear from the order passed by this Court on 27.6.2003. Once the accused has withdrawn his revision filed before Sessions Judge on his own volition, he cannot be allowed to invoke the inherent power of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. as apparently, it is nothing but a misuse of power of this Court and forum hunting device.

Power under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be wielded to divest the victim of the right to lodge an FIR in respect of crime committed against him/her.

This 482 Cr.P.C. Application is wholly misconceived, is not maintainable and, therefore, is dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.5.2014

Arvind