Back
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
Key Points: - Revision maintainable against an order rejecting Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application; Full Bench clarified maintainability and right to hearing for prospective accused (!) (!) - Prior Supreme Court directions require Section 156(3) applications to be supported by an affidavit; absence of affidavit renders the application non-entertainable (!) (!) (!) (!) - Magistrate may register FIR/investigate or treat the application as a complaint or reject, based on judicial discretion; cannot be constrained to always register if allegations are not prima facie credible (!) (!) (!) (!) - The necessity of considering prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) and the veracity assessment by Magistrate is emphasized in Priyanka Srivastava and Babu Venkatesh line of authorities (!) (!) (!) - In the case at hand, lack of affidavit led to holding the revision as devoid of merit and dismissal (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations about application handling. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 20 , 22 , 27 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 36 , 39 , 40) |
| 4. legal principles regarding section 156(3) cr.p.c. (Para 10 , 14 , 18 , 21 , 26 , 28 , 38) |
| 5. conclusion of dismissal of revision. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
2. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist/applicant registered as Misc. Case No. 136 of 2018, Vinod Kumar vs. Aidal Singh , P.S. Gabhana, Aligarh was rejected by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Aligarh vide order dated 26.05.2018, feeling aggrieved of which, the present revision has been filed.
3. The submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, in brief, are that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts of the case and evidence on record. It is against the provisions of law and suffers from the jurisdictional error as the jurisdiction vested in the Cour
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.
Magistrate has to always apply his mind on the allegations in the complaint where he may use his powers under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. In this connection, it may be immediately added that where in an ....
The court ruled that allegations of sexual assault necessitate the registration of an FIR without preliminary inquiry, emphasizing the need for judicial scrutiny in such cases.
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.
(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....
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 duty of the Magistrate to apply judicial mind while directing the registration of FIRs, and the consequences of filing frivolous and vexatious proceedings.
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
