Allahabad High Court
Devbrat vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89559
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5415 of 2023
Revisionist :- Devbrat
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anand Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for revisionist in Court today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for State.
3. Perused the record.
4. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Misc. Application No. 854 of 2023 (Devbrat Vs. Hari Om Pratap Singh) under Section 156(3), Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, whereby, aforementioned application has been rejected by Court below.
5. The learned counsel for revisionist contends that the order impugned is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. It is the case of the revisionist that during the course of investigation of Case Crime No. 192 of 2022, certain documents were given by the revisionist to the Investigating Officer. However, the same have been misplaced by the Investigating Officer in connivance with the accused. Thereafter, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted on 18.06.2023. The charge sheeted accused has not been charged under any other section but only under Section 420 I.P.C. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that since the offence complained of was committed by the prospective accused in discharge of his official duty and the criminality committed by the accused is a cognizable offence, therefore, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist ought to have been allowed by Court below. The view taken to the contrary by the Court below cannot be sustained in law and fact. Consequently, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the present criminal revision. He submits that it is by now well settled that in case first informant/complainant is aggrieved by the manner of the investigation the remedy lies to the first informant by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate for free, fair and impartial investigation. Admittedly, no application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by revisionist before the concerned Magistrate. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that after completion of investigation of concerned Case Crime No. 192 of 2022, the Investigating Officer had submitted the report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 18.06.2023. However, no protest petition was filed by the first informant/revisionist against the police report in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhagwant Singh Commissioner of Police and Another (1985) 2 SCC 537. In view of above, no effective relief can be granted to the revisionist in present criminal revision.
7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.
8. Having heard, the learned counsel for revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record and considering the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. for State in opposition to the present criminal revision could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionist, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain the present criminal revision.
9. As a result, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
Imtiyaz
