Naveen Chandra Tiwari vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 15460 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 405 of 2009
 

 
Revisionist :- Naveen Chandra Tiwari
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Salil Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Abbas Ahmad
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

Case called out. None appears on behalf of the revisionist to press the revision.

From the record, it is evident that on several dates, the case has been adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the revisionist.

Heard Shri Rajiv Verma, learned A.G.A. and gone through the record.

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.06.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. (A.P.), Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1551 of 2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow.

As per the pleading, one application was sent through the registered post to S.S.P. as well as S.H.O. concerned for lodging of the F.I.R., but since the same was not registered, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 18th June, 2009. However, the Magistrate concerned, in place of issuing a direction for lodging of the F.I.R., treated the said application as a complaint case. The case of the revisionist is that the court below has committed error in not directing for lodging of the F.I.R., though it was obligatory upon him.

Learned A.G.A. submits that the court below while treating the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case, vide order dated 22.06.2009, directed for recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in compliance of the said order, the complainant as well as witnesses appeared before the court below for recording their statement and the court below, after considering all the materials available on record, rejected the complaint case. It is, thus, submitted that there is no illegality in the same.

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned A.G.A. and going through the record as well as the impugned order, it is evident that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist, which was treated as a complaint case after hearing the complainant-revisionist and order dated 22.06.2009 was passed for recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on 30.06.2009. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application was wrongly treated as complaint case. It is also evident that in compliance of the aforesaid order, statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was recorded and finding no evidence for taking cognizance, the court below dismissed the complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 203 Cr.P.C.

In view of above, the revision is devoid of merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.11.2022

VKS