Allahabad High Court
Satyam Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 January, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4683
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18642 of 2024
Applicant :- Satyam Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh,Rajat Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar Gupta,G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 02.02.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Jaunpur in Case No. 28601 of 2023, police station Chandvak, district Jaunpur, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been registered as a complaint case.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2 making several allegations and that a prima facie case is made out but the learned Magistrate has declined the prayer of investigation by police and the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was registered as a complaint case. It was submitted that for collection of evidence, investigation by police was necessary. Learned Magistrate has not considered the facts of the matter and position of law in correct perspective and committed error by declining the prayer of investigation by police and registering the application of applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed the application and argued that opposite party no. 2 has purchased some goods (cold drink) from the firm of applicant but his whole payment was not made. It was submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and all the facts are in the knowledge of the applicant. It was further submitted that no cognizable offence is made out against the opposite party no. 2 and that the application of applicant has rightly been registered as a complaint and that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. The issue whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. containing allegation of commission of a cognizable offence is no more 'res-integra', as this controversy has been settled by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 739. After considering the full Bench decision of the Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 and many other cases, the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra) has answered the question referred to it, in paragraph 23 of the judgment as under:-
"The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. The second leg of the reference is also answered in the manner that the Magistrate has a discretion to treat an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint."
7. Thus, it is apparent that Magistrate is not bound to pass order of investigation by police, even if such application discloses cognizable offence. The Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by applicant had any substance or not. Even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in appropriate case according to facts and nature of the offences alleged to have been committed, the Magistrate can decline to direct investigation and in such cases the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint.
8. In case Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others;2015 AIR(SC)1758, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same."
9. Thus, while dealing with application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by the applicant had any substance or not. If the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima-facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application. Even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in appropriate case according to facts and nature of the offences alleged to have been committed, the Magistrate can decline to direct investigation and in such cases the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint, as held by the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra).
10. In the instant case it may be mentioned that the applicant has filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2, alleging that there have been business transactions between applicant and opposite party no. 2 and that opposite party no. 2 has purchased some goods (cold drink) from the firm of applicant but the payment of the same was not made. Learned Magistrate has considered entire facts and declined the prayer of investigation by police and registered the application of applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. In view of the nature of accusations and aforesaid position of law, it cannot be said that the impugned order is suffering from any such patent illegality or abuse of the process of law so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. In view of the above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.1.2025
Anand
