Allahabad High Court
Smt. Phoolmati Devi vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 25 May, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117156
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2776 of 2023
Appellant :- Smt. Phoolmati Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ganesh Mani,Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi,Birendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramesh Chand
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Ganesh Mani, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
Opposite party no.5 is shown to have been served through Whats app while opposite party no.6 is stated to have retired on superannuation.
The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant, namely, Smt. Phoolmati Devi with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act/ Additional Session Judge, Room No.2, Bhadohi, Gyanpur, in Misc. Case No. 292 of 2019 (Phoolmati Devi Vs. Umashankar Yadav and others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Koiraona, District Bhadohi and also allow the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned order as well as an O.P.D. Prescription slip of date 29.4.2019 pertaining to the appellant, vehemently submits that the Special Court has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the request of the appellant to investigate the allegations of the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by passing a mechanical order without considering the allegations in detailed.
It is also submitted that when the commission of cognizable offences were reflected from the allegations of the application it was incumbent duty of the court to have directed an investigation as contemplated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., moreover when the appellant/ complainant has sustained injuries. Thus the impugned order dated 28.11.2022 is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside.
Learned AGA has supported the impugned order.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that allegations mentioned in application as moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are patently absurd and could not be believed on the touch stone of probability. It is also submitted that daughter-in-law of opposite party no.3 had also lodged an FIR against the husband and son of the appellant and it is only on account of the same as a counter blast the instant application was given under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which has been correctly rejected by the court below.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the law with regard to the manner in which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is required to be dealt with is now no more res integra and the same has been settled by various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court, in this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.; MANU/SC/0344/2015 : AIR 2015 SC 1758 and in Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another; MANU/SC/8888/2006 : (2006) 1 SCC 627 and Aleque Padamsee & others Vs. Union of India (UOI) (2007) 6 SCC 171 : MANU/SC/2975/2007 as well as Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. reported in MANU/UP/0861/2001 as well as the Division Bench Judgement of this Court Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. & others; MANU/UP/1115/2007: ACC 2007 (59) 739 may be recalled, wherein it is provided that applications under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. are now coming in bulk and the Magistrate while considering the plea for investigation is duty bound to assess the necessity of investigation and it is not a compulsion for the Magistrate or special court to order for such investigation in each and every case wherein the commission of cognizable offences is emerging from the contents of application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thus having regard to the law mentioned herein before as well as the peculiar factual matrix of this case, I do not find any illegality so far as the impugned order is concerned and the same is hereby affirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.5.2023
Muk
