Allahabad High Court
Afsana vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 8 May, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:97604
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4088 of 2022
Revisionist :- Afsana
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar,Rakesh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
01. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 5 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
02. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Firozabad whereby the application of revisionist filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as complaint case in Criminal Misc. Case No.877/2022.
03. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the matter requires investigation and that from the allegations contained in the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. a cognizable case is made out, therefore, the order treating the application as complaint and proceeding as complaint case thereon is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the order under challenge has been passed mechanically and in a routine manner, which does not manifest the application of judicial mind to the facts of the case and law applicable therein. He has placed reliance on the case of 'Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of India and others', reported in 2014(2) SCC 1. It is further contended that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 31.05.2022 and F.I.R. on behalf of opposite party was filed on 06.06.2022, therefore, the observation of the court that this application may have been moved to exert pressure on the opposite side is not correct.
04.On the other hand, it has been submitted that the Magistrate while proceeding as a complaint case still has power to direct for police investigation in view of the provision of Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. In case the Magistrate has applied his discretion and adopted option for registering the case as complaint case, the order cannot be assailed in view of the judgement of this Court in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. and others 2007 (9) ADJI (DB). The trial court while exercising its powers has relied upon the aforesaid judgment.
05. I went through the order in question. The leaned trial court took into consideration the report received from the concerned police station which disclosed that case crime no.285 of 2022, under Sections 366, 506 and 376 I.P.C. has been filed against the brother of the complainant by one of the respondents, respondent no.2. Learned trial court also took into consideration the various precedents namely Ram Babu Gupta vs. State of U.P. 2001(43) ACC 50 (Ald.) (Full Bench), Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. 2002 (1) JIC 415 (Ald.), Mohd. Yusuf vs. Smt. Afak Jahan 2006 (54) ACC 530 (Supreme Court), Shiv Narayan Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. 2007 (57) ACC 7 (Ald.), Nathulal Gangwar vs. State of U.P. 2008 (61) ACC, 792 (Ald.), Suresh Chandra Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2001, Supreme Court 571 and Sukhbasi vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC, 739 (Ald.-DB) and thereafter the observations of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.781 of 2012, Smt. Priyanka Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others. The learned trial court gave an opinion that all the facts are in the personal knowledge of the complainant and, therefore, found it appropriate not to order for registering of the police case and investigation. The court instead ordered to register the case as based on complaint.
06. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Lalita Kumari(supra) considered the matter of duties of police officer with regard to registration of F.I.R. upon receiving any information relating to commission of cognizable offence under Section 154 Cr.P.C.. The Hon'ble Supreme Court formulated question in para-6 and para 22 of the judgment. In concluding para 111, the Apex Court no doubt held that registration of F.I.R. is mandatory, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, however, in my view, this dictum given by the Apex Court did not impinge on powers of the courts. The Apex Court did not impose restrictions on court's power to adopt either of the two courses open to it. The applicant cannot insist that courts should adopt a particular option and no other. Of course exercise of powers in a particular manner must be based on good reasonings.
06. In my view, the order has been passed in a judicious manner as has been appropriate in circumstances of the matter. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order so as to warrant interference.
07. Hence, the criminal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2023
Asha
