Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Chaurasia vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22684 of 2022
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Chaurasia
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Lallan Prasad Singh,Ashutosh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing judgment and order dated 8.6.2022 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ballia in Crl. Revision No.14 of 2022 Manoj Kumar Chaurasia vs. State of U.P. and another and order dated 3.12.2021 passed by ACJM-I, Ballia in Misc. Application No.202 of 2021 under section 156(3) CrPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of total area of 1.607 hectare of plot No.1024, a piece of land measuring 0.253 hectare was purchased by the present petitioner from respondent No.3 Kusum Devi for a sale consideration of Rs.10 lacs. On the basis of aforesaid sale-deed, when the applicant went on 22.8.2021 to take possession of the plot, Ravindra Yadav and Harendra Yadav stopped him and have stated that Kusum Devi has already sold her entire share to Nirmala Devi and Sangeeta Devi by registered sale deed on 20.5.2019. On an enquiry from Kusum Devi, she abused and threatened to kill.
It is submitted that fraudulently, with a view to earn more money, respondent No.3 deliberately has concealed the fact that she has already sold the said land and sold it again to present petitioner.
An application was given by the petitioner to the concerned police station for registration of first information report, however, it has not been registered. Consequently, an application under section 156(3) CrPC was filed before the trial court. Vide impugned order dated 3.12.2021, the trial court has treated the application under Section 156(3) CrPC as a complaint case. While registering the application so filed by the petitioner as a complaint case, the trial court has observed that the complainant is fully aware of the issues and he knows the defendant(s). The trial court has further observed that there is no evidence of any sort which may be said to be beyond the reach of the complainant and there is no such fact for which an investigation by police is required.
Against the said order dated 3.12.2021, a revision was filed by the complainant which has been rejected vide order dated 8.6.2022, relevant portion whereof is extracted below :
?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???????? / ???????????? ?? ????????????? ???????? ???? 156 (3) ?????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???????? Gopal Das Sindhi Vs State of Assam and Anothers AIR 1961 SC 986 In this case Hon'ble Apex court observed that every time when a complaint filed a magistrate is not bound to take congnisence of the same. He may sent the complaint to the police for investigation U/s 156(3)Cr.P.C. That the maker of law used the word "May" not "Shall". The word may give power to Magistrate to apply his mind to the fact of the complaint for the perpose of recording with the same in a manor witch the think fid meanig these by the recipt of complant. He was to course open to him either to direct for investigation of FIR or to proceed as complant case and followed the procedure given in chapter XV of the code.
Joseph Mathuri Vs Swami Sachidanand Hari Sakshi 2001 (supl) ACC 957 In this case Hon'ble Apex court observed that clearly stated that the Magistrate has power ti treat application in filed U/S 156 ( 3 ) Cr.P. C. as Complant.
Ramesh Bhai Pandu Rao Vs State of Gujrat (2010) 4 SC 185 In this case Hon'ble Apex court held that when a Magistrate has received and complaint he was to course available to him one is direction for registerd FIR U/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C and Second adopt the procedure of complaint case.
Suresh Chandra Jain Vs State Of M.P. 2001 (42) ACC 459 SC In this case Hon'ble Apex court held that a Magistrate has the authority to treat and application U/S U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C as Complaint.
??? ??? ????????? ???? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? 2008 ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? 472 ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?????????? ???? 156 (3) ?? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ???, ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? 156 (3) ??? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??, ???????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???
???????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???????? / ???????????? ?? ????????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ??. ????????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??, ?? ???? ????? ???
??? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ????????? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? ? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ????????????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ??, ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??, ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???
????
???????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ???????? 03-12-2021 ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ????? ???
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that police investigation is required in this case. The trial court has wrongly treated the application and converted it as a complaint case and therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside and the concerned police station be directed to register first information report.
On due consideration to the argument advanced as also finding recorded by the trial court as well as revisional court and the judgment of this Court in Sikhwasi versus State of U.P. [2007(9)ADJ1 (DB)], I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the orders impugned. The complainant is fully aware about the entire incident. Respondent No.3 is known to the complainant. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any such evidence which is beyond the reach of the complainant and therefore, the trial court has rightly directed the application under Section 156(3) CrPC to be registered as a complaint case.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.9.2022
kkb.
