Ramoo vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 23822 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:57770
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2481 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Ramoo
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/ Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ankit Tripathi,Bhupendra Singh Bisht
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. HeardAnkit Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this criminal appeal, the appellant has challenged the order and judgment dated 02.08.2023 passed by Special Judge, S.C.&S.T. Act whereby application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the instant appellant was dismissed.

3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that from the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., commission of cognizable offence is disclosed, therefore, the court concerned ought to have ordered for registration of the F.I.R. and investigation thereupon.

4. I went through the impugned order. The trial court found that a criminal case against the appellant has already been registered as case crime no.230 of 2023, under Sections 332, 353, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and after investigation chargesheet has already been submitted by the police against the instant appellant. The court was of the view that application has been moved just to exert undue pressure on the opposite party.

5. I went through all the material on record. The Magistrate/court concerned cannot be expected to act upon an application in a mechanical manner. He shall be failing in his duty in case he fails to apply his mind. Settled position of law is that the Magistrate shall order for registration of a case if application 'discloses' commission of cognizable offence. In my view, the disclosure of cognizable offence cannot be construed to mean replication of words or the facts in such a manner as may fit within four corners of an offence defined in statutes. He cannot allow himself to become a tool in the hands of unscrupulous litigant out to harass the other side. The mischief should be nipped in the bud. Moreover, the remedy in law is not foreclosed. The option to file complaint case is still there.

6. In my view, the discretion has been well applied by the court below and there is no good ground to entertain this appeal.

7. The appeal is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission.

Order Date :- 29.8.2023

Asha