Allahabad High Court
Sohil Khan vs The State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 November, 2014
Bench: Bharat Bhushan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19243 of 2014
Petitioner :- Sohil Khan
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yadvendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan,J.
Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1.
Heard Sri Yadvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
It appears that application of the petitioner under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah vide order dated 22.8.2014. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the revisional jurisdiction by filing Crl. Revision No. Nil of 2014 (Sohil Khan versus Shriram and others) which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 18.9.2014 relying upon decision of this Court in Father Thomas versus State Of U.P. & Another 2011 (2) Cr. L.J. 2278.
It is apparent that criminal revision was not decided on merits but it was decided on the basis of perceived bar mentioned in the Father Thomas case (Supra). The order passed by the Sessions Judge, Etah is not sustainable in view of the Full Bench decision in Jagannath Verma & others versus State of U.P. & another, 2014 (8) ADJ 439, wherein it has been held that an order of the Magistrate rejecting an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of a case by the Police and for investigation is not an interlocutory order and such an order is amenable to the remedy of criminal revision under section 397 Cr.P.C. The Full Bench has held thus :
"(i) Before the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas, the controversy was whether a direction to the police to register a First Information Report in regard to a case involving a cognizable offence and for investigation is open to revision at the instance of a person suspected of having committed a crime against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued. Such an order was held to be interlocutory in nature and, therefore, to attract the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 397. The decision in Father Thomas does not decide the issue as to whether the rejection of an application under Section 156 (3) would be amenable to a revision under Section 397 by the complainant or the informant whose application has been rejected;
(ii) An order of the magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation is not an interlocutory order. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397; and
(iii) In proceedings in revision under Section 397, the prospective accused or, as the case may be, the person who is suspected of having committed the crime is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken in the criminal revision."
Learned counsel for applicant as well as learned AGA have agreed that in view of this latest Full Bench decision of this Court, it would not be appropriate to keep this petition pending, therefore, impugned order dated 18.9.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Etah is set aside. Sessions Judge, Etah is directed to decide the criminal revision in the light of Full Bench decision in Jagannath Verma case (Supra) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 20.11.2014
SU.
