Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Smt. Seema Devi - Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others – Opposite Partes
Criminal Revision No. - 312 of 2024
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Allegation of Rape and Molestation - 154, 157, 173 of Cr.P.C. - Matrimonial disputes/family disputes, Medical negligence cases - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that her daughter was molested and raped by the opposite party. The trial court rejected the application citing lack of evidence and unnatural circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the allegations to be unnatural and lacking evidence, suggesting that the complaint was lodged to pressure the accused in another case.
Issues: Allegation of rape and molestation, validity of rejection of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the mandatory registration of FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and the necessity for preliminary inquiry in certain cases, as established in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. and Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed at the admission stage due to lack of merit.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State.
2. By means of this instant revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the revisionist has challenged the validity of the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District and Session Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.1268 of 2023 whereby an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been rejected. In the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the revisionist had alleged that younger brother of opposite party No.6 was having a love affair with a girl. However, marriage of that girl was settled with some other person, due to which the younger brother of opposite party No.6 had committed suicide in the month of June’ 2023. An FIR was lodged in this regard on 01.07.2023 against the complainant’s son Anil Kumar Kanojia. On 03.07.2023, the opposite party Nos.6, 7 & 8 entered the revisionist’s house at about 04:30 PM, her 15 years old daughter was alone in the house, the aforesaid persons started searching for the revisionist’s son Anil Kumar Kanojia and when her daughter objected against it, the opposite party No.6 molested and raped her and the opposite party Nos.7 & 8 had beaten her and had bitten on her cheeks. A complaint in this regard was given to the police on 03.07.2023 itself and thereafter complaint were sent to various authorities through registered post on 30.08.2023.
3. The trial court took into consideration the facts averred in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and noted that although the revisionist has alleged that she had given information of the incident at the police station on 03.07.2023 but information was given to the police Commissioner through registered post only on 30.08.2023. On 01.07.2023, a case was lodged against the complainant’s son for abetting the brother of opposite party Nos.6, 7 & 8 to commit suicide. The allegation of commission of rape merely two days thereafter appears to be wholly unnatural. There are no witnesses of the alleged incident. There is no medico-legal examination report to support the allegation. Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Versus State of U.P.: 2015 (6) SCC 287, the trial Court rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
4. While challenging the validity of the order rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh: (2014) 2 SCC Page 1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that :
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information
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....
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.
(1) While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of accused on registration of FIR is not.(2) Once Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 190 of Code, he cannot ask for investigation by Poli....
The discretion of the magistrate to order a preliminary inquiry and the illustrative nature of the categories mentioned in the Lalita Kumari case.
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....
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.
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
