Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.
Sanno - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2023
Decided On : 08-01-2024
Criminal Revision - Registration of First Information Report - 156 (3) Cr.P.C. - 34, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act - The court discussed the requirements for registration of a first information report under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and emphasized the mandatory nature of the provision. The court also considered the application of mind by the Magistrate in issuing directions under 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and highlighted the discretion of the Magistrate in ordering the registration of an FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of a case against the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 for a cognizable offence. The trial court dismissed the application, citing reasons such as the delay in filing the application and the familial relationship between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's decision to dismiss the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was upheld, as the court found that the trial court had not committed any illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in its decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's dismissal of the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of a case against the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the provision for registration of a first information report under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and highlighted the discretion of the Magistrate in ordering the registration of an FIR under 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was dismissed, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary action.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri Pradeep Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Hemant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 39 of 2022 (Sanno Vs. Shahnawaz and others) u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
3. By the impugned order, the trial court dismissed the application of the revisionist u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of case against opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that from the averments made in the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., a cognizable offence was made out against the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 but the trial court without any legal ground rejected her application for registration of a criminal case and investigation thereof by the S.O. of the concerned police station. It has next been submitted that the trial court rejected the application merely on the ground that one of the accused, namely, Ansar, had registered a criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 125 of 2022 u/s 34, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Atrauliya, District-Azamgarh, against the father of the petitioner, Noorul Huda Kayim and 5 others. It has also been submitted that the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. cannot be dismissed merely on the presumption that it was registered to take revenge for the first information report previously registered by the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 against revisionist’s father. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & Others, 2014 (2) SCC 1.
5. Per contra, Sri Hemant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 has submitted that the trial court has passed the impugned order after considering the facts in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding registration of first information report. It has been next submitted that the date of occurrence of the alleged offence in the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is 01.07.2022 whereas for the first time, the revisionist/applicant gave application to S.S.P., Azamgarh on 16.07.2022 after a gap of 16 days and no explanation has been given for the aforesaid delay. In the application, it has not been mentioned that the applicant earlier tried to get her first information report registered by submitting application to the S.O. of concerned police station. It has also been submitted that the Class VIII examination marksheet filed by the revisionist which is issued by Madarsa Islamia Faizan-I-Raza does not bear the stamp of the Principal of the school. It has also been submitted that the revisionist resides in District-Azamgarh. No reason has been given why marksheet has been issued from school situated in District- Ambedkar Nagar in proof of her date of birth.
6. The averments made in application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist, Sanno, in brief is that applicant, Sanno, daughter of Noorul Huda Kayim, resident of village- Sakin Saraiya Ratnawa, Police Station-Atrauliya, District- Azamgarh, who has passed Class- VIII in 2022, was on 01.07.2022 at 8 p.m. going towards west of her house to Siwan. Her neighbour, opposite party no. 2, Shahnawaz, was sitting concealing himself for ambush. As soon as revisionist/applicant reached there, he held her hands and forcibly put her on the ground and removed her clothes. He started making obscene gestures with her. On hue and cry being raised by the revisionist/applicant, her mother, Avtaran, reached there. Then accused, Shahnawaz, fled from the place of occurrence. The revisionist’s mother, Avtaran and her grandfather, Wazir, visited the house of Shahnawaz to complain against him to his parents. There opposite party nos. 3 and 4, namely, Ansar and Takdirun, threatened revisionist’s mother and
The mandatory nature of the provision for registration of a first information report under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the discretion of the Magistrate in ordering the regist....
FIR registration is mandatory if a cognizable offence is disclosed, and second FIRs are permissible where informants and versions differ.
Point of Law : Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot act as a post office as the Magistrate has to apply his mind with regard to the fact as to whether the cas....
A Magistrate has the discretion to either register a case under Section 156(3) or treat it as a complaint; there is no obligation to register every application as an F.I.R.
The judgment emphasizes the mandatory registration of FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and the need for a preliminary inquiry in specific cases.
The maintainability of a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is contingent upon prior judicial directions and the existence of a cognizable offense.
The need for a responsible invocation of the power u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the mandatory nature of Section 154(1) of the Code for registration of FIRs.
Point of law : Applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are now coming in torrent and thus exercise of the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and not in routine manner.
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
