Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Pradeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Monis, Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 & 3, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on the record.
2. Challenge in this application is to the impugned order dated 18.9.2024 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1583 of 2024 ( Pradeep Kumar Vs. Mohit Kumar and others ) arising out of proceeding under section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. Police Station Sheoli, District Kanpur Dehat.
3. The allegations made in the application under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. are that the opposite parties on 29.7.2024 at about 08:30 P.M. at night, when the injured of the case Sandeep had gone to attend the call of nature, was caught hold by the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 due to previous enmity and then his right leg was tied up with barbed wire and then tied to a motorcycle through which he was dragged for quite a distance. It has further been alleged in the application that the entire leg of the injured Sandeep was amputated after which the accused left Sandeep and run away. The applicant co
Magistrates have discretion under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. to treat applications for investigation as complaints, emphasizing judicial reasoning and necessity for police involvement.
The court clarified that Section 175(4) of the BNSS is discretionary, not mandatory, allowing the Magistrate to independently decide on investigations without undue influence from prior orders.
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.
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.
Prospective accused lack locus standi to challenge an order directing F.I.R. registration before cognizance is taken, validating the inherent jurisdiction limitations as per Section 528 and Section 1....
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 court emphasized that a Magistrate must apply judicial discretion and ascertain the existence of a cognizable offence before directing police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Prospective accused cannot challenge the direction for F.I.R. registration and investigation before cognizance, affirming no locus standi in such cases.
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....
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
