Ram Mohan Tiwari v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary

Honble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.8.2010 passed by In charge Sessions Judge, Lucknow in revision No. 284 of 2011 Ram Mohan Tiwari Vs. Shiv Dayal Sharma and order dated 22.7.2011 passed by Special C.J.M Custom, Lucknow in criminal case No. 1251 of 2011 Ram Mohan Tiwari Vs. Shiv Dayal Sharma.

2. For the purpose of adjudication of this revision, the facts in brief are as under;

The petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Custom, Lucknow with the allegation that opposite Party Shiv Dayal Sharma, his wife and his son Ashok Sharma caused injuries to him on 15.5.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. and also caused injuries to his wife and his minor son aged about two and half years and also snatched Rs. 700/ from his pocket and made an effort to obtain his signatures on a blank paper. On this application, a report was called from the police station concerned. It was reported by the police that regarding this incident a case Case Crime No. 330 of 2011 under sections 452, 323, 504 IPC has already been registered and on this ground alone the application under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code was rejected. The above mentioned revision was preferred against the said order which was also dismissed in lemine on that very ground.

It is submitted that the case which was registered at the police station, on the basis of which his application and revision has been dismissed was a case in which the petitioner was an accused. In the application under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code he moved his counter version but the same was not registered and the revision was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash reported in : AIR 2004 SC 4320 [LQ/SC/2004/1015] . In the aforesaid case the Honble Supreme Court held as under,

In the instant case, it is seen in regard to the incident which took place on 20th May, 1995 the appellant and the Ist respondent herein have lodged separate complaints giving different versions but while the complaint of respondent was registered by the concerned police, the complaint of the appellant was not so registered, hence on his prayer the learned Magistrate was justified in directing the police concerned to register a case and investigate the same and report back.

3. Honble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment has also given an example to illustrate the reasons behind such legal position,

This will be clear from hypothetical example given herein below. if in regard to a crime committed by the real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question consequently he will be deprived of his legitimate right to bring the real accused to books. This cannot be the purpose of the Code.

4. It is settled law, there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts.

5. In view of the settled legal position, in the opinion of this court the order dated 17.8.2011 passed by In charge Sessions Judge, Lucknow and the order dated 22.7.2011 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow deserve to be set aside and accordingly the same are hereby set aside.

6. The petition succeeds.

7. The learned Magistrate is here by directed to pass a fresh order on the application under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code expeditiously after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

8. In the light of above, the revision is disposed of.