Court No. - 79

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16562 of 2021

Applicant :- Raj Kumar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Vishwakarma

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for

the State and perused the material brought on record.

The present application has been filed with a prayer to

quash the order dated 26.11.2020 passed by Special Judge

SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in Case No. 66 of 2020 (Raj Kumar Vs.

Mohit & Ors.), P.S. Maharajganj, District Jaunpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that one incident

took place on 15th March, 2020 and complaint was made

to the police Control Room by calling on 112, on which,

police reached on the spot. It is further submitted that one

written complaint was also given to the Station House

Officer, P.S. Maharajganj, District Jaunpur on the same day.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite

taking action on the said application, the Station House

Officer, in connivance with private respondents, lodged

F.I.R. 33 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and

Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District

Jaunpur against the applicant himself on 15th March, 2020

at 16.41 hrs. It is also submitted that applicant was not

aware about the investigation of the aforesaid case as

neither the chik was given to him nor his statement was

recorded.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that thereafter

application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 3rd

June, 2020 with the prayer for a direction to lodge the F.I.R.

against the private respondents and conduct the

investigation. However, the court below vide impugned

order dated 26.11.2020 treated the said application as a

complaint case and ordered for recording the statement

under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that in the

present case, investigation is necessary and, therefore, the

court below has committed wrong by treating the

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

complaint case. In support of his argument, learned

counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs.

Government of U.P. & Ors., 2014 (2) SCC 1. In such

circumstances, indulgence of this Court is necessary.

Learned A.G.A., while opposing the prayer of the learned

counsel for the applicant, submits that F.I.R. No. 233 of

2020 (supra) was lodged in relation to the same incident

of 15.03.2020, as is mentioned in the application moved by

the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned A.G.A.

further submits that after about three months of the

lodging of the F.I.R., the application under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant. Further, the applicant

has not disclosed in the present application about the

status of the investigation in the said F.I.R. It is next

submitted that in the said application also, it is admitted

that one F.I.R has been lodged in relation to the same

incident. Learned A.G.A. vehemently submits that though

the applicant was aggrieved in relation to the investigation,

but he never made any application to the superior officers

of the police with the grievance that the investigation may

be conducted properly. It is further submitted that as per

the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., in case, the complaint

case is filed for the same incident, then both the cases will

be tried together. Learned A.G.A. also submits that the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Lalita Kumari (supra) will not be applicable in the present

case. He further submits that under the provisions of

Section 190 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is empowered to take

cognizance on such application by treating it as a

complaint case. It is also submitted this controversy has

already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court