Allahabad High Court
Smt.Son Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 31 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100281
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5806 of 2023
Revisionist :- Smt.Son Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Prakash,Pandey Balkrishna,Rama Shankar Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pranshu Dwivedi,Ram Prakash Dwivedi
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Pandey Balkrishna, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. R.P. Dwivedi, the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2, 3 and 4, who has filed counter affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record.
2. Perused the record.
3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Criminal Misc. Application No. 57639 of 2022 (Smt. Son Devi Vs. Prabhat Maheshwari and Others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereby Court below has rejected aforementioned application filed by the revisionist.
4. Learned counsel for revisionist contends that the order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and in excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the same is unsustainable in law and fact and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. In furtherance of above submission, he invited the attention of Court to the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist, copy of which is on record as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of criminal revision. He submits that from the perusal of the said application dated 17.09.2022, the commission of cognizable offence is clearly disclosed. It is then submitted that accused persons i.e. opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 have subsequently, not only demolished the Samadhi but have also taken possession over the entire land, which belongs to the revisionist. On the above conspectus, he, therefore, contends that the view taken by the Court below is not only illegal but also erroneous. Referring to the Five Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, he submits that in case, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence then in that eventuality, court has no other option but to allow the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by complainant and direct the Station House Office of concerned Police Station to register the FIR. In view of above, he, therefore, submits that the order impugned is liable to be set aside and consequently, the present criminal revision is also liable to be allowed.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2 to 4 have vehemently opposed this criminal revision. They submit that Court below had rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. primarily on three grounds - (A). On account of some fraud having been played, Case Crime No. 348 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC has been lodged against Raghuveer Singh (husband of Smt. Son Devi) and 14 others, which is pending investigation, (B) In respect of the land in dispute, a civil dispute is already pending before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction and (C) A purely civil dispute is being sought to be dragged into criminal litigation. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 that the reasoning assigned by Court below for rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. As such, the reasonings recorded by Court below remain intact. Once the reasonings recorded by Court below in respect of the conclusion drawn remains intact, the conclusion drawn by Court below cannot be altered. They, therefore, submit that no question of law and fact is involved in present criminal revision and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the reasonings assigned by Court below for rejecting the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are cogent reasonings, which could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionist as being illegal, perverse or erroneous. Subsequent to the Five Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra), a Two Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 has held that jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in a routine manner. Courts should exercise extreme caution, care and circumspection while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is in line with above that Court below has delved into the facts and circumstances of the case to find out as to whether, there is bona-fide with the complainant/revisionist in filing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or not. Furthermore, the Apex Court in the case of Lalit Chaturvedi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Anohter, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 has held that there is a growing tendency to drag civil dispute into criminal litigation needs to be curbed. The view taken by the Court below is in conformity with aforementioned judgment. Upon perusal of the order impugned, this Court finds that Court below while passing the order impugned has neither committed jurisdictional error nor has it exercised it's jurisdiction with such material irregularity so as to vitiate the same and warrant interference by this Court.
8. In view of above, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024
Vinay
