Allahabad High Court
Smt. Vandana vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 July, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143635
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1225 of 2022
Appellant :- Smt. Vandana
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Amrit Shanker Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kartikey Pandey,Shobhit Yadav
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Amrit Shanker Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
2. Sri Kartikey Pandey and Sri Shobhit Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are not present despite the matter being taken up in the revised list.
3. The present appeal has been filed before this Court with the following prayers:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present criminal appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 04.01.2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 859 of 2021 (Smt. Vandana Versus Awadhesh Tiwari and others) under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for offence U/s 386, 452, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act at Police Station Jaitpur Kala, District Agra whereby the learned court below rejected the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant even though, from perusal of the allegation contained therein the same constitute the commission of cognizable offences and direct the Learned Special Jude (SC/ST Act) Agra to exercise his discretionary power and decide the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist and pass a fresh and appropriate order within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court and/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
4. The facts arising out in the matter are that an application dated 09.11.2021 filed by the appellant against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the offences under sections 386, 452, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act has been rejected vide order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the concerned trial court. The present appeal has thus been filed against the said order.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court would not have dismissed the application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the appellant since the allegations therein were for the offences under the I.P.C. and also under the SC/ST Act and in view of the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Soni Devi Versus State of U.P.: 2022 (5) ADJ 64 the concerned trial court should have mandatorily ordered the same to be lodged as an F.I.R. It is argued that as such the present appeal be allowed. The impugned order be set aside and appropriate direction be issued.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and argument of learned counsel for the appellant.
7. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that an application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for alleged offences under the I.P.C. and SC/ST Act of the appellant has been rejected by the trial court vide the impugned order dated 04.01.2022. Insofar as the view taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Soni Devi (supra) is concerned the same has been held to be not correct in the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on a reference in the case of Naresh Kumar Valmiki Versus State of U.P. and others: Application U/S 482 No. 14443 of 2022 decided on 17.10.2022. In view of the same, the said argument is not available to the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The next issue is whether rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is amenable to the appellate jurisdiction or not even the said issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Jagannath Verma Vs. State of U.P.: 2014(8) ADJ 439 in which it has been held that after rejection of an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the complainant has a right to challenge the said order in a revision.
9. In view of the same, the present appeal also cannot be entertained.
10. The appeal thus lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2023
K.K. Maurya
(Samit Gopal, J.)
