Allahabad High Court
Madhav Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10461 of 2023
Applicant :- Madhav Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh,Indrajeet Singh,Pavan Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Madhav Singh with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2022 (Madhav Singh Vs. Raniya @ Ranvir and others) as well as order dated 30.11.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mathura in Misc. Case No. 29345/2021 (Madhav Singh Vs. Raniya @ Ranvir and others), P.S. Magorra, District Mathura and with a further prayer to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12, Mathura to direct the police of Police Station Magorra, District Mathura to register first information report against the accused persons in suitable sections.
The applicant is the complainant of the present case. He filed an application dated 20.09.2021 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, the trial court vide its order dated 30.11.2021 came to a conclusion that the allegations in the complaint are well within the knowledge of the complaint and considering the judgment passed in the case of Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. : 2007 (59) ACC 739 directed the same to be treated as a complaint. The complainant preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge concerned which being Criminal Revision No. 40/2022 (Madhav Singh Vs. Raniya @ Ranvir and 4 others) stood rejected vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2022 with the finding that there is no irregularity and illegality in the order of the trial court and the said order was thus affirmed.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued while placing an order dated 12.07.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Application 482 No. 9470 of 2022 (Shailendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), copy of which is annexed as annexure 3 to the affidavit that in a similar circumstance another Bench of this Court has set aside the order passed by the Magistrate treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint on the ground that the concerned court has not recorded a finding as to whether application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of cognizable offence or not. It is argued that in present case there is no satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned recorded in the order dated 30.11.2021 that any cognizable offence is made out or not. It is argued that as such both the orders dated 30.11.2021 passed by the trial court and the judgment and order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the revisional court are bad in the eyes of law and deserve to be quashed and the matter be remanded back to be decided a fresh on merits.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that in the present case, the trial court in its order dated 30.11.2021 has specifically stated that the allegations as levelled in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are within the knowledge of the complainant and as such there is no requirement of the matter being sent for investigation. It is further argued that even the allegations in the complaint have been mentioned in the said order which go to show that the trial court has considered the same and has then treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. It is argued that the order dated 30.11.2021 was challenged before the revisional court which has also affirmed the same. The present application does not has any substance and deserve to be dismissed.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint. The trial court has adverted to the allegations in the complaint and also to the legal position and has given its finding that as to why the same does not need to be sent for registration as a First Information Report. It has treated the same as a complaint. The said order has been affirmed by the revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 23.12.2022 by considering the legal aspect and even the order.
This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the orders. In so far as the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the same is distinguishable on facts as in the present case. The trial court has adverted to the allegations in the complaint which would go to show that prima facie offence is made out.
In view of the same, the application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
