Court No. - 80

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3354 of 2021

Petitioner :- Sonu @ Sonam

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Prasad

Sharma

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 11.2.2021 passed by Session

Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Revision No. 91 of 2020 as

well as

order dated 4.11.2020 passed by C.J.M,

Maharajganj in Misc. case no. 4433 of 2020 under section

156(3) Cr.P.C. P.S. Paniyara, District Maharajganj.

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

the petitioner on 16.7.2020 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

before the C.J.M, Maharajganj 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 4.11.2020,

criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner being

Criminal Revision No. 91 of 2020, Sonu alias Sonam Vs.

State and another 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 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

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)

F