Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Madan v. State Of U.p. And 3 Others

Madan v. State Of U.p. And 3 Others

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3074 of 2022 | 25-04-2023

Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma, J.

1. Heard Sri Damodar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 04.06.2022 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Misc. Application no.139 of 2021, (Madan vs. Ramkirshna Yadav and others) whereby trial court dismissed the application under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. I perused the papers on record.

4. In the application moved by the revisionist, it is alleged that Station House Officer at police station and S.I. posted there called the revisionist for the purpose of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. They instead of recording statement illegally confined him in the lock up, abused him by saying caste words and also physically assaulted him. It is further alleged that they threatened him for his life and also removed certain papers and Rs.500/- from his pocket.

5. In Aleque Padamsee vs. Union of India, 2007 (3) ILR 469, the Supreme Court observed that the correct position of law is that police officials ought to register the F.I.R. whenever facts brought to its notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police fails to do so, the modalities to be adopted, are as set out in Section- 190 read with Section- 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The trial court noted the fact that there are certain cases registered against the revisionist and he has criminal antecedents and then proceeded to dismiss the application in the light of facts and circumstances of the case.

7. It may be noted that despite dismissal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the revisionist/complainant still has certain remedies open in law. It is not so that once application under section- 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the Magistrate has no option but order for registration of F.I.R. just because it discloses a cognizable offence on paper irrespective of the broad probabilities of the case.

8. I find no good ground to interfere in the order, hence this Criminal Revision is dismissed.

Advocate List

  • Damodar Pandey

  • G.A.

Bench
  • Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Jyotsna Sharma
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/AllHC/2023/3858
Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss.156(3), 190 and 200 — Application under S.156(3) CrPC — Dismissal of — Effect — Revisionist/complainant still having certain remedies open in law — In the application moved by the revisionist, it was alleged that Station House Officer at police station and S.I. posted there called the revisionist for the purpose of statements under S.161 CrPC — They instead of recording statement illegally confined him in the lock up, abused him by saying caste words and also physically assaulted him — It was further alleged that they threatened him for his life and also removed certain papers and Rs.500/- from his pocket — Trial court noted the fact that there were certain cases registered against the revisionist and he had criminal antecedents and then proceeded to dismiss the application in the light of facts and circumstances of the case — Held, despite dismissal of the application under S.156(3) CrPC the revisionist/complainant still has certain remedies open in law — It is not so that once application under S.156(3) CrPC has been filed, the Magistrate has no option but order for registration of F.I.R. just because it discloses a cognizable offence on paper irrespective of the broad probabilities of the case — Hence, revision dismissed