IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manjive Shukla, J.
Rajendra Singh – Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1965 of 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure of police to register fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. revisionist's application to register fir. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. details of the opposing party's actions and delays in filing complaints. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal arguments against non-registration of fir. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments regarding the necessity of fir registration and legal obligations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. counterarguments regarding the registration of multiple firs. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. court observations on the factual matrix and procedural aspects. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. analysis of the legal principles concerning fir registration. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. mandatory registration of fir upon cognizable offence. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 10. clarification on the legal standards for registering multiple firs. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 11. court allows revision and orders fir registration. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 12. final conclusion allowing the revision and setting aside the previous order. (Para 42) |
JUDGMENT :
Manjive Shukla, J.
1. Heard Sri Srijan Pandey and Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsels appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4.
2. The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging therein, the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Misc. Case No. 71 of 2024 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Vinod Singh and Others) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the police to register the First Information Report, had been rejected. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that brother of the revisionist i.e. Virendra Singh and his wife were found dead in their house in the morning of 07.11.2023. The revisionist informed the police of the Police Station Pailani, District Banda that his sister, Krishna Devi, his cousin, Vinod Singh and one Sanjay Singh have administered poison to his brother and wife of his brother, which had resulted into their death. The police did not register the First Information Report, however the police sent the dead- bodies for post-mortem. In the post-mortem report, it is mentioned that the cause of death could not be ascertained and therefore viscera had been preserved.
4. Since the police did not register the First Information Report, the revisionist went to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. but he was ousted from the police station by using force. Thereafter, the revisionist appeared before the Superintendent of Police, Banda on 21.12.2023 and he also sent his application for lodging F.I.R. to the Superintendent of Police, Banda through registered post on 22.12.2023.
5. Since, in-spite of the aforesaid efforts made by the revisionist, the police did not register F.I.R., he filed an application on 26.02.2024 in the court of learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda. In the said application, the revisionist had stated that his brother, Virendra Singh was sanctioned a house under Pradhan Mantri Housing Scheme and an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was credited in his account. The sister of the revisionist i.e. Krishna Devi, cousin of the revisionist i.e. Vinod Singh and Pradhan Pratinidhi, Sanjay Singh were pressurizing Virendra Singh to hand-over half-land of the house and Rs. 60,000/- from the amount received under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Scheme to them. In the application, it was further stated that the aforesaid Krishna Devi, Vinod Singh and Sanjay Singh extended threat to Virendra Singh to hand over the land and money to them within five to six days otherwise they will kill him. In the application, it had further been stated that the aforesaid Krishna Devi, Vinod S





Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Surender Kaushik and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala
Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar
State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha
Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.)
FIR registration is mandatory if a cognizable offence is disclosed, and second FIRs are permissible where informants and versions differ.
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 second FIR is permissible if it presents a different version of the same incident, allowing for new discoveries to be considered.
A second FIR is maintainable if it involves distinct allegations not covered in a prior FIR, even if both arise from the same factual circumstance.
Revision maintainable against dismissal of Section 156(3) CrPC application; prior police complaints evidenced by postal receipts satisfy precondition; forgery to obtain scheme benefits discloses cogn....
The main legal point established is the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence and the need for a preliminary inquiry in certain cases. The court emphasized t....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.