Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.
Brajesh Shukla - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 1668 of 2019
Decided On : 06-05-2019
For the Appellant : Dinesh Tiwari, Virendra Singh and Radha Kant Ojha.
For the Respondents: A.G.A., Santosh Kumar Singh and Vimlendu Tripathi.
The duty of the police to register F.I.R. is mandatory if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
Headnote:
156(3) Cr.P.C. - Criminal Revision - Chapter-XXII of the Code - Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. - Section 154 of the Code - Duty of the police to register F.I.R. - Mini inquiry on the merits of the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Registration of F.I.R. is mandatory if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence - No preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation
Fact of the Case:
Opposite party No. 2 moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registering an F.I.R. alleging forgery and illegal takeover of a college. The application was rejected by the Magistrate, but the Revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The lower Revisional Court rightly allowed the revision as the Magistrate had conducted a mini inquiry on the merits of the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was not permissible. The duty of the police to register F.I.R. is mandatory if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
Issues: The main ground of challenging the impugned order was that the lower Revisional Court did not consider the documents filed before him and that no cognizable offence was made out. The lower Revisional Court observed that the Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction by analyzing and conducting a mini inquiry on the merits of the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The registration of F.I.R. is mandatory if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. The Magistrate is only required to be satisfied as to whether the F.I.R. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and to see that the allegations on the face of it are not inherently absurd, vague or so improbable that would revolt against the understanding of a man of common prudence.
Final Decision: The revision lacks merit and stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.4.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2017 (CNR No. UPAG01-008559-2017) Raghunandan Parasar v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the Revisional Court has allowed the revision filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and set aside the order dated 29.5.2017 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 8, Agra whereby the application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on behalf of opposite party No. 2 was rejected.
2. Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Virendra Singh and Shri Dinesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionist.
3. An application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party No. 2 for registering an F.I.R. with the allegations that he happens to be the Manager/Director of Raghuram Mahavidyalay Kishora Ka Bagh Birai Te-hra, P.S. Saiya, District Agra, which is being run by a registered society having its President Smt. Anita Parasar. It was further alleged that erstwhile Manager/Secretary, Mr. Brajesh Shukla (present revisionist) was trying to illegally take over the society as well as the college in respect of which the management had made complaints from time to time. It was further alleged that Brajesh Shukla had committed forgery by preparing forged resignation letters of the officiating Principal as well as some of the officiating Lecturers during 02.9.2016 to 6.10.2016 in order to extend undue benefit to few of his right hand men and all this was done in conspiracy with Mr. Mithan Lal, Raj Kumari, Bhagwan Devi, Urmila Devi, Ram Lachhin, Dr. R.K. Chandra and Dr. A.K. Jain. It was further alleged that forged document of appointment of eleven beneficiaries were also prepared on the pretext of their appointments in place of persons claimed to have resigned and apart from this certain forged documents of meeting of the society were also prepared and with all these forged documents, application was presented before the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad on 06.10.2016 with request to grant approval to the appointment of eleven beneficiaries. All those forged and concocted resignation letters and other documents were certified by Mr. Brajesh Shukla. It was further alleged that the Examination Regulatory Authority summoned the concerned parties along with their Aadhar Cards vide his letter dated 21.2.2017 for 9.3.2017, on which date the officiating Principal and other Lecturers appeared and disclosed that their resignation letters are forged and concocted and do not bear their original signatures. These persons also submitted their notary affidavits disclosing this intent. It was further alleged that in the entire controversy Mr. Brajesh Shukla and his associates were duly involved despite knowing the fact that Mr. Brajesh Shukla has never worked as Manager of the college but actually he had been the Manager/Secretary of the society, which are two different posts and this fact is supported by Clause-7(b) of Appendix 2 of the Regulations of B.T.C. Course of N.C.T.E. and is also supported by Clause-13(kha) of the Affiliation Regulation of S.C.E.R.T. It was also alleged that Clause-6 and Clause-10 of the Bye-laws of the society also provides that such type of appointment can only be done with the consent of Chairman of the institution but the Chairman, Smt. Anita Parasar in the present case has never given any consent for the said entire process. With such allegations, it was claimed in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that the opposite party No. 2 moved complaint before the concerned police station and senior police officers but the F.I.R. was not lodged and as such, the Station House Officer, P.S.-Saiya, District-Agra was required to be directed to lodge the F.I.R. and to do the needful.
4. The said application was rejected vide order dated 29.5.2017 by learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 8, Agra. Being
