Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SADHNA RANI THAKUR, J.
Ram Sharan Jatav – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.6822 of 2019
Decided on : 17-12-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 326A, 326B, 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 376AB, 375B, 376C, 376DA, 376DB, 376E and 509 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 156, (3) 2 (d), 154 and 190 - Permanently mentally or physically disabled - Offence of Rape - Lower court rejected the application of the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. -Appellant moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before Special Judge along with affidavit that he is a resident of Village - He exploits weaker section persons and on protest abuses them and gives them threat of life - Because of his terror no one comes forward to file a suit or depose against him - Reached in front of house of Village and was purchasing something from shop existing in house of Village along with his companion kicked him from back - Common intention hurled caste based abuses and asked him why did he refuse to come on their call to work for them - Both of them assaulted and beat him badly with fists - Report was taken but same was not registered - Accused persons who are influential persons are giving threat not to let him live in village officer incharge of police station concerned be directed to lodge first information report and investigate the matter.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant he has mentioned that “opposite party nos. 2 and 3 hurled caste based abuses and beaten him with kicks and fists - It makes clear that in application itself commission of cognizable offence has been mentioned so as per judgment of Apex Court preliminary inquiry was needed by Magistrate - Police station concerned regarding complaint - Fact is admitted by concerned court in impugned order that purpose of summoning police report was only to ascertain fact as to whether an F.I.R. in matter had been registered in the police station or not and in report of police station it is clearly mentioned that no first information report has been registered in police station concerned regarding allegation made in application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C - Applicant-appellant was hurling abuses and after hearing noise opposite party nos. 2 and 3 came out of their houses pursuaded the applicant and sent him to his home but after some time the applicant-appellant again came to shop and again started hurling abuses - Both opposite party nos. 2 and 3 holding his hands then brought applicant-appellant to his home - Basis of judgment in was incumbent upon Magistrate concerned to order registration of first information report as application itself disclosed commission of cognizable offence and in that situation no preliminary inquiry was permissible.
Result: Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 14.10.2019 of the Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Misc. Case No. 72 of 2019 Ram Sharan Jatav Vs. Sandeep Dixit and others Police Station Madhogarh, District Jalaun. By the impugned order the lower court rejected the application of the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the appellant.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Ram Sharan Jatav moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge (SC & ST Act) Jalaun on 18.09.2019 along with affidavit that he is a resident of Village Bangara, P.S. Madhogarh, District Jalaun and is by caste 'Chamar' (scheduled caste). Sandeep Dixit the son of Gram Pradhan Brahmin by caste is a person of criminal nature. He exploits the weaker section persons and on protest abuses them and gives them threat of life. Because of his terror no one comes forward to file a suit or depose against him. On 07.09.2019 at 9.00 p.m. he was coming back from the market to his home along with Uday Singh, as soon as he reached in front of the house of the Village Pradhan and was purchasing something from the shop existing in the house of Village Pradhan, Sandeep Dixit along with his companion Prem Babu Pachori came there. Sandeep Dixit kicked him from the back. When he resisted both of them in furtherance of their common intention hurled caste based abuses and asked him why did he refuse to come on their call to work for them. Both of them assaulted and beat him badly with fists, blows and kicks. Mohit s/o Ram Swaroop, Udai Singh s/o Veer Singh and other persons standing thereby saved him. He submitted his complaint in the police station Madhogarh on 08th September, 2019 his report was taken but the same was not registered. He got himself medically examined on 09.09.2019 by his own and gave his complaint to the Circle Officer Madhogarh on 10.09.2019 and Superintendent of Police, Jalaun on 12.09.2019 by registered post but his report has not been lodged till now. The accused persons who are influential persons are giving threat not to let him live in the village, hence the officer incharge of police station concerned be directed to lodge the first information report and investigate the matter.
4. After receiving this application, the court concerned summoned the report from the police station Madhogarh. The witness Mohit filed an affidavit denying to witness the incident.
5. After perusal of the report of police station concerned and affidavit of witness, the officer concerned passed the impugned order and rejected the application of the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 14.10.2019.
6. The present appeal has been preferred against this rejection order dated 14.10.2019 passed on Misc. Application No. 72 of 2019 (Ram Sharan Jatav Vs. Sandip Dixit), P.S. Madhogarh, District Jalaun on the premise that the lower court has committed manifest error of law by not considering the case of the appellant. He being the member of scheduled caste community is exploited at the hands of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and is compelled to do the forced labour. On 07.09.2019 at 9.00 p.m. he was assaulted with kicks and fists and abused by hurling caste base words by both the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The cognizable offence has been committed but his report was not lodged in the police station concerned. The Circle Officer concerned and the Superintendent of Police also did not pay any heed so he was compelled to file the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and that too has been rejected by the Court concerned after summoning a report from the police station concerned. The witness Mohit was compelled by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to give affidavit to the effect that he did not witness the incident. The police has submitted false report. Prima facie a cognizable offence is proved to be committed by
Question that the Special Judge can treat the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case or not? Answer is “No”.
Police despite repeated efforts made by the appellant did not lodge the first information report as it is disclosed from the materials available on record and the pleadings in the memo of appeal, no ....
Direction for Police Investigation – Option to direct registration of case and its investigation by police should be exercised where some “investigation” is required, which is of a nature that is not....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to decide whether to register an FIR based on the application, assessing whether a cognizable offense is made out.
The magistrate's discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, and the registration of an FIR is mandatory only when a cognizable offence is disclosed; otherwise, the applica....
The Magistrate must judiciously exercise discretion in registering FIRs under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring that mechanical refusals are avoided when cognizable offences are disclosed.
distinction between the investigation by the police officer under Section 156(3) and under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is that the former is at the pre-cognizance stage and the latter is at post cognizanc....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to determine whether to direct an investigation, particularly in civil disputes masquerading as criminal matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
