Allahabad High Court
Smt. Tarawati vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 9 December, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1274 of 2022
Revisionist :- Smt. Tarawati
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Amit Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist, Smt. Tarawati, challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Room No. 12, Sultanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 568 of 2022, whereby the application made by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on 12.08.2022, at 4:00 p.m., respondent no.2-Ashirwad Yadav came to Jiya Lal?s house of revisionist?s village. At that time, revisionist?s daughter aged about 16 years was taking bath in the bathroom. On seeing the revisionist?s daughter taking bath, respondent no.2 pushed and opened the door of the bathroom and thereafter started molesting revisionist?s daughter and also making her video. After that revisionist?s daughter made noise and on hearing the noise, revisionist went there and saw that respondent no.2 had made video of her daughter. Thereafter, on seeing the revisionist, the respondent no.2 fled away from there by threatening her daughter to viral her video. When revisionist?s husband came to home at night, then, revisionist told whole incident to her husband and in the morning, the revisionist?s husband and all family members went to shop of the respondent no.2 situated in village Maghgwavan and requested to respondent no.2 and his family members to delete the photos and video of the revisionist?s daughter and then respondent no.2 and his family members started fighting with the family members of the revisionist due to which parties got minor injuries in the altercation. After that revisionist and his family members, after getting treatment, went to police station Mushafirkhana and submitted the application against the respondent no.2 and requested to lodge the F.I.R. against the respondent no.2 but the F.I.R. was not lodged against the respondent no.2. After that respondent no.2 and his relative lodged a false and fabricated F.I.R. against the revisionist?s husband and his family members, which was registered as Case Crime No. 220 of 2022, under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C., at Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi, despite the fact that no one sustained any injuries. He further stated that the aforesaid F.I.R. was challenged by the revisionist?s husband before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6119 of 2022, wherein interim protection was granted in favour of the revisionist?s husband vide order dated 25.08.2022. Thereafter, the revisionist had filed application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Court below for lodging the F.I.R. against the respondent no.2 but the same was rejected by the Court below by means of the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 without considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumar Vs. Government of India and others : 2014 (2) SCC 1 and the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, Criminal Revision No. 1768 of 2018, decided on 29.05.2018 and Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2007 (59) ACC 739.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that if the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence, then the Magistrate is under obligation to direct investigation after registration of the FIR in each and every case. However, in the application made by the revisionist under Section 156 (3), court below has not found any substance and he has rightly rejected the application of the revisionist. The court below has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. The court below has recorded pure finding of fact. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the court below is legal and just and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
This Court have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the present criminal revision.
In Hari Singh Vs. State of U.P : 2006 Criminal Law Journal 3283, the Apex Court has held as under :-
?When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Reg) through itsPresident v. Union of India and Others[(1996) 11 SCC 582]. It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained.
The above position was again highlighted recently inGangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra[(2004) 7 SCC 768] and inMinu Kumari and Another v. State of Bihar and Others[(2006) 4 SCC 359].?
In the present case, the Court below, after collecting the report from the police station concerned, was of the view that no prima facie case has been made out and accordingly, revisionist's application has been rejected by the court below by means of impugned order.
On due consideration, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
The present criminal revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 9.12.2022
Ajit/-
