IMPORTANT POINT
The magistrate has discretionary power to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. based on genuine petitions containing truthful allegations and the application under Section 156(3) should be supported by an affidavit.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gireesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Puneet Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of this instant criminal revision, the revisionist has assailed the judgment and order dated 27.09.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 2128 of 2022 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Yogendra and Others) u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Sirsaganj, District-Firozabad.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 without considering the evidence on record and without application of his mind. Since the impugned order has been passed against the weight of the evidence on record, it should be set-aside and learned Magistrate may be directed to pass order afresh on the application of the revisionist.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist has filed criminal revision on false and frivolous ground.

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly rejected the revisionist’s application vide order dated 27.09.2022.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have been heard. Perused the entire evidence present on the revision.

7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, it has been averred that the revisionist’s daughter, Madhuri, was married to opposite party no. 2, Yogendra Singh s/o Phoolan Singh, resident of village- Bhura Bhartara, Police Station- Sirsaganj, District- Firozabad, as per Hindu rites and rituals on 06.05.2017. It has also been averred that after marriage, the deceased and her husband were peacefully living a married life and one child, namely, Manavaya, was born out of their wedlock. It has also been averred that Madhuri, wife of opposite party no. 2, was suffering from asthma and for that, she was under treatment of doctor. During her treatment in the hospital, she died on 31.03.2022. The opposite party no. 2 and his family members informed about her death to the revisionist and other family members. In the cremation ceremony of Madhuri, revisionist and her family members were present. It has also been averred that after the death of Madhuri, the revisionist pressurized the opposite parties to take his son, Manavaya, but the opposite party no. 2 and his family members agreed to purchase agricultural land in favour of Manavaya for securing his future. It has further been averred that agricultural land was purchased by opposite party no. 3, Phoolan Singh, father of Yogendra.

8. The applicant/revisionist, Smt. Kamlesh, has filed application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2022 alleging that her daughter, Madhuri, was married on 06.05.2017 to accused, Yogendra according to hindu rites and rituals. The applicant/revisionist has spent about Rs.8,00,000/- in the marriage of her daughter. The husband of revisionist’s daughter, Yogendra, her father-in-law, Phoolan Singh, mother-in-law, Smt. Guddi Devi and brother-in-law (devar), Vineet were not satisfied with the dowry and they were asking Madhuri a car from her father. Averment has made in the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that after returning from her matrimonial home to her paternal home, applicant/revisionist’s daughter used to tell the applicant, her father and her sister, Sonia about her harassment for dowry by her husband and in-laws. She used to tell that they may cause her death in order to get a car. The applicant/revisionist’s daughter started doing job as a G.N.M. in Agra where her husband was also working. He used to often taunt her that she did not provide a car from her father while she was staying with her husband at Agra