Court No. - 90

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 616 of 2022

Revisionist :- Narendra Kumar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar Gupta,Chandra Pal

Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for

the State.

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and

order dated 08.03.2021 passed Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act),

Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Application No.283 of 2020, Narendra

Kumar vs. Rampal Singh & others, P.S. Sherkot, District Bijnor

whereby application of the revisionist under Section 156 (3)

Cr.P.C. has been registered as a complaint case.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that brother of the

revisionist Dhanendra @ Dhirendra had solemnized love

marriage with Raunak daughter of Rampal Singh on

09.09.2016. The revisionist is scheduled caste and Raunak

belonged to the upper caste and, therefore, her family members

were not happy with this marriage. On 18.10.2020 all the

opposite parties came and forcibly took Raunak and committed

murder of Raunak. According to the revisionist, this is the case

of honour killing. After committing murder of Raunak opposite

parties falsely implicated the brother, father and mother of the

revisionist though they have been bailed out by this Court and

operation of the chargesheet and further proceedings of case has

been stayed by this Court.

Looking to the matter, F.I.R. was to be registered and the matter

be investigated but previously also the revisionist had tried to

lodge the F.I.R. at police station but his report had not been

written so prayer under Section 156(30 Cr.P.C. was made but

this application has been registered as complaint case by order

dated 08.03.2021.

It is argued that case relates to the offence of murder i.e. a

cognizance offence as per judgement of Lalita Kumari vs.

Government of U.P. and others, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187

whenever report is made regarding cognizance offence it is

mandatory to register the F.I.R.. It is further argued that learned

court below has concluded that the applicant has full knowledge

of all the facts mentioned in the application, hence, he can

produce sufficient evidence in this regard. The trial court on

the basis of judgment passed in Rambabu Gupta vs. State of

U.P. and others, ACC 2001(43) page 50 and Sukhbasi vs.

State of U.P., AlJ 2007 (6) page 42 application under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. ordered to be registered as complaint case.

Learned A.G.A. submitted that the applicant is aware of the

whole evidence. Lower court is justified in passing the

impugned order. Though it is true as per Ruling mentioned in

the impugned order Rambabu Gupta (supra) and Sukhbasi

(supra) that if the applicant is aware of the whole evidence to

be produced and he is aware of all the names of the accused

persons also the Magistrate has discretionary power either to

register application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint

case or may order to register an F.I.R and and investigate the

matter.

Present matter is said to be of honour killing. Admittedly

deadbody of Raunak is found in the house of opposite party

no.2, in my opinion, matter is very serious and the revisionist

alone could not be said to be capable of producing whole

evidence in support of his case. Matter differs from case to case.

In my opinion, going through the facts of the present case, it

would be appropriate that the matter be investigated through

police. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

The instant criminal revision is hereby allowed.

The impugned order dated 08.03.2021 passed by Special Judge,

(S.C./S.T. Act), Bijnor is set aside. Learned court below is

directed to decide application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. a

fresh after hearing the revisionist again.

Order Date :- 7.3.2022

Asha

Digitally signed by ASHA

Date: 2022.03.09 17:04:42