Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Raveena Meena – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 3148 of 2024 (Smt. Raveena Meena Vs. Murarilal Meena and another), under Section 173 (4) of BNSS , 2023, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, by which the application under Section 173 (4) BNSS filed by the applicant has been treated as complaint case.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.12.2024 at about 4 p.m., the applicant was going to the market for some work, when Murarilal Meena and Subah Singh Meena met her in the market, made obscene gestures to her and passed dirty comments towards her. The applicant came home, told the whole incident to her husband and other family members. When her husband went to complain to the accused persons, those people abused him and assaulted him. Murarilal caught hold of the applicant from behind and did obscene acts with her. Hear
The court upheld the discretion of the Magistrate to treat an application under Section 173(4) as a complaint case, emphasizing that such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
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.
The court emphasized the necessity of conducting a preliminary inquiry before proceeding with an FIR to prevent abuse of legal process in cases with potential ulterior motives.
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 court ruled that a Magistrate must exercise careful judicial discretion when considering an application under Section 156(3), ensuring each complaint is evaluated adequately before deciding on FI....
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 175(3) of the BNSS to decide whether to register an FIR based on the application, assessing whether a cognizable offense is made out.
A Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to either take cognizance or direct investigation by police, thus not legally bound to register an FIR.
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
