Court No. - 80

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1941 of 2021

Petitioner :- Parwati Devi

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

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

and perused the record.

Present matters under Article 227 of Constitution of India

has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash

the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 passed by Session

Judge, Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2019 as well

as order dated 06.07.2019 passed by A.C.J.M-I, Ballia

under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. P.S. Phephana, District Ballia.

Brief facts of the case are that an application was filed by

the petitioner on 06.07.2019 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

before the A.C.J.M, Ballia and the learned magistrate after

considering the entire allegations and material on record

directed the application to be treated as a complaint for

recording the statement of the complainant under section

200 Cr.P.C.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 06.07.2019,

criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner being

Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2019, Parwati Devi Vs. Harihar

Nath and others mainly on the ground that the application

under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. discloses cognizable offence

as such it would require to direct the police to register an

F.I.R. under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and investigate the

same. The revisional court after taking into consideration

the entire material on record and being of the opinion

that the complainant has full knowledge of the entire fact

as well as the accused persons and her witness and is able

to lead her evidence before the court as such order for

directing the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to be

treated as a compliant is just, proper and legal and do not

call for interference and rejected the revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since

from the allegation made in the complaint cognizable

offence is clearly disclosed as such it was incumbent upon

the magistrate to direct the police to register a case under

section 154 Cr.P.C. and investigate the same.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that upon

receiving the complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the

magistrate may in its discretion either direct the police to

register the case under section 154 Cr.P.C. and investigate

the same or may treat the application under section

156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and proceed further for

recording the statements of the witnesses under section

200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that there is

no provision that the magistrate may not treat the

application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and

make an enquiry by recording the statements of the

witnesses under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and looking to

the circumstances that the applicant has full knowledge of

the facts of the case and accused as well as her witness

can lead her evidence in the court. The view taken by the

learned magistrate in treating the application under section

156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint is just, proper, legal and do

not call for any interference.

It is well settled principle of law that in case an application

under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, the

magistrate in its discretion may direct for registration of

an F.I.R. under section 154 Cr.P.C. or treat the same as a

complaint and proceed further by recording the statements

of the witnesses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the

decision of Mohd Yusuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt) and

another reported in (2006) 1 SCC 627, Fakhruddin

Ahmad Vs. State of Uttranchal and another,

reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157 and Ram Babu Gupta

Vs. state of U.P. and others reported in 2001 (43)

ACC 50 (FB)

From the aforesaid decisions, it is ample clear that upon

an application received under secti