SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2416

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


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jitendra Kumar Singh,Srijan Pandey
For the Respondent: G.A.,Saurabh Chaturvedi

FIR registration is mandatory if a cognizable offence is disclosed, and second FIRs are permissible where informants and versions differ.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 397, and 401 - Criminal revision against rejection of application to register FIR - Police failed to register FIR despite cognizable offence disclosure - Delayed applications from both parties raise concerns over motives - Court held registration of second FIR permissible when informants and versions differ. (Paras 2, 11, 14, 21, 39)

(B) Registration of FIR - Requirement of registration when cognizable offence disclosed - Preliminary inquiry not permissible in such cases - Police must act on information disclosing cognizable offence. (Paras 29, 30, 120)

(C) Delay in lodging complaint - Law allows counter-complaints when informants differ and versions vary - Court will not preclude aggrieved parties from pursuing their claims. (Paras 8, 10, 36, 39)

Facts of the case:
The revisionist's relative was found dead with allegations of poisoning by family members over property disputes. Despite submitting applications to police and courts, FIR was not registered until a later counter-complaint emerged from the opposite party five months post-incident.

Findings of Court:
The revisionist's application merited fresh consideration for FIR registration as it disclosed a cognizable offence, contradicting police findings.

Issues: The key issues included whether the court must act on the revisionist's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the legitimacy of subsequent FIRs based on differing versions of events.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the mandatory requirement for FIR registration when cognizable offences are disclosed, alongside existing legal precedents permitting multiple FIRs when informants and allegations differ significantly.

Result: Criminal revision allowed; order for fresh consideration of the FIR application.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top