HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Mohd Ibadullah .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State Of Up And 6 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dharm Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajeev Kumar Sharma Court No. - 84 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Case called out in revised list. No one appears on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 to press this revision.

2. Heard Sri Dharm Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The instant revision has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.1.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Misc. Case No.08 of 2024 (Mohd Ibadullah Vs. Saif Ullah and others) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur, whereby application under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of revisionist has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist was in possession of a shop situated in a residential house, which had fallen to his share in a family settlement, and he was using the said shop for storing and selling animal feed and poultry feed. The shop was secured with a lock. It is submitted that on the night of 09.09.2023, the accused persons, in connivance with each other, got the lock of the revisionist's shop opened by making a duplicate key and affixed their own lock. The said incident was captured in the CCTV footage. The accused persons abused the revisionist in filthy language and extended threats to kill him. It is further submitted that on 11.09.2023 at about 10:52 a.m., opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 forcibly entered the shop and looted the animal feed and poultry feed kept therein, and again abused and threatened the revisionist.

The incident was also recorded on CCTV. The revisionist approached the police station for lodging a First Information Report, but no action was taken. Thereafter, he sent a registered complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 16.09.2023, but no case was registered.

5. Consequently, the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking a direction for registration of the case. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.01.2024 on the basis of the police report. The learned Special Judge committed manifest illegality and material irregularity in rejecting the said application in an arbitrary and mechanical manner, without considering the material available on record. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the impugned order is legal and suffers from no infirmity. The revisionist and opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 are belonging to the same family. The present application has been filed due to family dispute and personal enmity. Earlier criminal cases have already been registered against the revisionist, and the present proceedings have been initiated as a counterblast on false and concocted allegations. The learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after considering the police report. The revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. Law regarding jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is well settled. Power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by Magistrate judicially on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. If application does not indicate that any evidence is required to be collected and preserved and applicant is familiar with names of accused persons and witnesses then in such a case, no investigation by police is required. Whether the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on each and every application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. containing allegation of commission of a cognizance offence is no more a 'res-integra', as this controversy has been se