Back
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on : 30.09.2019 Judgment Delivered on : 24.10.2019 Writ Appeal No. 426 of 2019 (Arising out of order dated 19/07/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPCR No. 507 of 2019)
1. Faiz Ahmed S/o Shakil Ahmed Aged About 27 Years R/o S.P. Motor Parts, Near Anand Talkies, Balve Market, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Shakil Ahmed (Father In Law) S/o Late Kammal Solanki Aged About 52 Years R/o S.P. Motor Parts, Near Anand Talkies, Balve Market, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Shabnam Praveen (Mother In Law) W/o Shaqeel Ahmed Aged About 46 Years R/o S.P. Motor Parts, Near Anand Talkies, Balve Market, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Riyaz Ahmed S/o Late Sheikh Maqbul Aged About 44 Years R/o R.N. -
227, Hudco Bhilai, District Durg - Chhattisgarh ---- Appellants Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Station House Officer Police Station, Civil Line, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3. Mohammed Shahid S/o Late Hazi Abdul Hussai Aged About 49 Years R/o Shiv Chowk, Kududand, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District-
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Complainant)
---- Respondents _______________________________________________________________
For Appellants : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Sudeep Verma, Deputy Government Advocate ________________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
['KANWALJEET SINGH SAINI', '', 'Gurpreet Kaur Chawla', 'REENA SINGH', 'SANJAY AGRAWAL', 'SHARMILA SINGHAI', 'A G']
CAV JUDGMENT
Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice
1. Dismissal of the writ petition filed by the Appellants challenging the Annexure- A/2 order dated 21/06/2019 passed by the learned Magistrate, directing the Police Officer concerned to register FIR and to proceed with the investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'CrPC'), in respect of the cognizable offences and the subsequent proceedings whereby FIR came to be registered by the Police Officer are put to challenge in this appeal. The main ground of challenge is that the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is not correct or sustainable for non-satisfaction of the pre-requirements under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC, which has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while holding that no such requirement is there in Section 156(3) of the CrPC. It is pointed out that the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, [(2015) 6 SCC 287] and hence the challenge.
2. Heard Ms. Sharmila Singhai, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr Sudeep Verma, the learned counsel representing the State.
3. The crux of the factual sequence which led to the proceeding, as revealed from the materials on record, is that there were some hiccups in the matrimonial relationship between the 1st Appellant and his wife, who is the daughter of the 3rd Respondent, alleging various offences against the Appellants (Appellants No.2 & 3 are the parents of the 1st Appellant and Appellant No.4 is the maternal uncle). The 3rd Respondent filed a petition before the learned Magistrate at Bilaspur under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and after considering the same, the learned Magistrate forwarded the same to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Line, Bilaspur / 2nd Respondent directing to register FIR and to investigate.
Pursuant to the said order, Annexure-A/4 FIR came to be registered by the 2nd Respondent, against the Appellants, in respect of the offences under Sections 452, 498A, 294 and 506B, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This made the Appellants to approach this Court by filing WP(Cr) No.507/2019, seeking to set aside Annexure-A/2 order passed by the learned Magistrate and to quash the FIR registered by the police with Crime No.504/2019 of the Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur.
4. As mentioned already, it was specifically contended that no petition/proceeding was ever filed by the complainant in terms of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC, without which no proceeding could be entertained under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. It was also contended that a 'preliminary enquiry' had to be conducted in view of the nature of grievance, being a matrimonial dispute, as declared by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Latita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, [(2014) 2 SCC 1]. After hearing both the sides, the learned Judge declined interference and the writ petition was dismissed, which hence is subjected to challenge in this appeal.
5. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on
23.09.2019, maintainability of the appeal was doubted and the learned counsel was required to address the Court on this ground as well, apart from the merit involved and accordingly, the matter was heard elaborately.
6. With regard to the merits involved, the contention of the Appellants is that the complainant had not preferred any application under Section 154(1) of CrPC before the Station House Officer and no petition was filed before the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the CrPC, before filing the petition before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, if there was any lapse on the part of the Station House Officer in registering the crime. Without completing the pre-requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrP
