Allahabad High Court
Urmila Devi vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 66 of 2022
Revisionist :- Urmila Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- S.S. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Learned AGA has filed compliance report today in Court. Let the same be kept on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2021 passed by Special judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No.296 of 2021 (Urmila Devi vs. Navin Tiwari and others) under Sections 156 (3) Cr.P.C. at Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.
Records shows that on 15.08.2021 at about 10.00 am, Navin Tiwari, S.O. Chopan alogwith crime branch team, namely, Amit Tripathi, Amar Singh, Harikesh Yadav, Jagdish Maurya and Ram Ashre reached the house of revisionist in respect of investigation in Case Crime No.219 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC. While using caste denoting words, they entered into the house of the revisionist and taken away her son Gopi at Kotwali, where Gopi has been beaten, as a result, he sustained injuries. Record further shows that son of revisionist was detained at police station from 15.08.2021 to 20.08.2021.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a poor lady belongs to SC/ST community. The opposite party nos.2 to 8, without any complaint or FIR, taken away the son of revisionist at Kotwali, where he has been brutally beaten. He has further submitted that according to medical report, son of revisionist has received as many as six injuries, thereafter, the revisionist has moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before Special Judge SC/ST Act, which has been dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2021. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the court below has committed manifest error of law while passing the impugned order in a cryptic manner. The learned court below has misused his powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. while rejecting the application and has refused to direct the registration of the FIR against the accused persons, though a cognizable offence was disclosed against the opposite party nos.2 to 8. The trial court without giving any finding, rejected the application, which is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to set aside.
On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the order passed by the learned court below is in consonance with the law, hence, there is no illegality in the said order.
In paragraph 10 of the compliance affidavit filed today, it is clearly mentioned that according to CDR report, the stolen mobile of the deceased was recovered from the possession of the son of revisionist, hence, he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. It is further mentioned in paragraph 11 of the compliance affidavit that after proper investigation, the Investigating Officer has discharged the son of revisionist from the charge levelled against him, hence, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the revisionist vide its order.
I have perused the impugned order and it cannot be said that the learned court below has committed any illegality by rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. No interference is called for by this Court in the present case. The revision is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
The personal appearance of Kiran Kumar Singh, Inspector/Incharge at Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra, who is present before this Court, is exempted.
Order Date :- 4.5.2022
Ajeet
