Allahabad High Court
Ravi @ Ravindra vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 22 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92603
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3988 of 2023
Revisionist :- Ravi @ Ravindra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rama Shankar Mishra
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Bhawesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party-1 and Mr. Rama Shankar Mishra, the learned counsel representing Opposite Parties 2, 3, 4 & 5.
2. Perused the record.
3. The present criminal revision came up for admission on 17.08.2023 and this Court passed the following order:-
"This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar in Misc. Case No. 1145 of 2023 (Ravi @ Ravindra Vs. SHO Ankit Chauhan and others).
By the impugned order, the Magistrate rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) CrPC.
Admit.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned AGA.
Issue notice to opposite party nos. 2 to 9 fixing 25.09.2023.
Learned counsel for the revisionist is directed to take steps for effecting service of notice on opposite party nos. 2 to 9 within a week.
Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
Put up this case on 25.09.2023 as fresh."
4. In compliance of the above order dated 17.08.2023, notices were issued to Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 9. Office has submitted a report dated 23.09.2023 stating therein that notices issued to Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 9 have been served personally. However, in spite of service of notice neither any counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 6, 7, 8 & 9 nor anyone has put in appearance on their behalf of to oppose this criminal revision.
5. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated 10.07.2023, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1145 of 2023 (Ravi @Ravindra Vs. SHO Ankit Chauhan and others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Chola, District- Bulandshahr, whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist, has been rejected by court below.
6. Learned counsel for revisionist contends that the order impugned in the present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and arbitrary. Court below has rejected the application dated 09.05.2022 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist on the basis of conjectures and surmises. No finding has been returned by the court below with regard to the issue as to whether upon perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. commission of a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. As such the court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction diligently and has passed the order impugned in a casual and cavalier fashion.
7. Attention of the Court was an invited to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2014 SC 187 and on the basis thereof it is urged by the learned counsel for revisionist that in case the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence then in that eventuality the Court has no other option but to allow the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Court below in clear ignorance of the specific mandate of law has erroneously rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that the observations contained in the penultimate part of the impugned order to the effect that there is dispute between the revisionist and Devi Ram is factually incorrect. In support thereof he has invited the attention of court to Ground No. 11 of the grounds of revision raised in support the present revision. On the above premise, it is thus urged by counsel for revisionist that order impugned cannot be sustained and is therefore liable to be set aside by this Court.
9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State- opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Rama Shankar Mishra, the learned counsel representing opposite party nos. 2, 3, 4, & 5 have vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. They submit that irrespective of law laid down by the five Judges' Bench in Lalita Kumari (Supra), subsequently a two Judges' Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & another Vs. State of U.P. & others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 held that jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in a routine manner. The court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must exercise caution and circumspection. It is in line with above the court below has delved into the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the criminal history of the revisionist, has rightly rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist. As such no illegality has been committed by court below in passing the order impugned. Consequently, the present revision is liable to the dismissed.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State- opposite party 1, Mr. Rama Shankar Mishra the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2, 3, 4 & 5 and upon the perusal of record, this Court finds that court below has not returned a finding as to whether on the basis of the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the commission of a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. To the contrary the court below on the basis of conjectures and surmises has rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist. As such court below has failed to exercise his jurisdiction diligently but has rejected the aforementioned application filed by the revisionist in a casual and cavalier fashion. As a result the order impugned cannot be sustained and is therefore liable to be set aside.
11. In view of the discussions made above, this criminal revision succeed and is liable to be allowed.
12. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed.
13. The impugned order dated 10.07.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1145 of 2023 (Ravi @Ravindra Vs. SHO and others), under Section 153(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Chola, District- Bulandshahr, is hereby set aside.
14. The matter shall stand remanded to the court below to decide the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist afresh in the light of the observations made in this order.
15. Necessary exercise shall be undertaken by court below within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
Sharad/-
