Ram Itraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 4 Others

Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11920 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Itraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Niyaj Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶1Heard.

¶2The application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.c. has been filed for following main reliefs: "to quash the impugned order dated 9.6.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, in Criminal Revision No.136 of 2022; Ram Itraj Versus State of U.P. and others and impugned order dated

3.6.2022, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)- V/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, in Criminal Case No.896 of 2022; Ram Itraj Versus Sanwala Prasad Pandey and another, as contained in Annexure nos. 1 and 2 respectively to this petition, in the interest of law and justice. It is further most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party no.3 to register the first information report of petitioner against the opposite parties no. 4 and 5 under appropriate sections and further be pleased to direct the opposite party no.2 to carry out the investigation of case under his supervision, in the interest of law and justice."

¶3Vide order dated 03.06.2022, the application preferred by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. registered as Case No. 896/2022 (Ram Itraj Vs. Sanvla Prasad Pandey and Others), has been rejected.

¶4Vide order dated 09.06.2023, the revision preferred by the applicant, registered as Case No. 136/2022 (Ram Itraj Vs. State Uttar Pradesh through District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar), challenging the order dated

03.06.2023 has been rejected.

¶5Relevant portion of the order dated 03.06.2022 whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected, on reproduction, reads as under:- "

सुनातथाप्ቔावलीकापरिशीलनकिकया। ्ቚ स्तुत्ቚ कण

:

गाटासं०

974,

कबा

0.1350

हे०जोकिकअपनीनवीनपतीसेसंबंधि!तहै।्ቚ ाथ# नेअपने्ቚ ाथ$नाप्ቔ केमाध्यमसे

कथनकिकयाहैकिककिवप्ቌीगणनेकूटधि)तढंगसेगाटासं०

974,

कबा

0.1350

हे०अपने

नाम)ढ़वालिलयाहै

,

जिजसकेसंबं! मेंउसनेजिजलाधि!काीकेसम्ቌ शिशकायतकिकयाथा।

जिजस्ቚ कणमेंजिजलाधि!काीवअप जिजलाधि!काी्ቛ ााकाय$वाहीकीगयीहै। ्ቚ ाथ# ने

किवधि! व्यवस्थाWaseem Haidar V. State of UP & other 2021(114) ्ቚ स्तुतकिकया

है।उ्ሹ किवधि! व्यवस्थामेंमाननीयइलाहाबादहाईकोट$ नेयहअव!ारितकिकयाहैकिक-Stranger to offence can inform the police about commission of any congnisable offence......the act of failure of police to perform this statutory duty can certainly accuse cause of action to the stranger to seek writ of mandamus under act 226 of the constitution of India from superior court to compel the police to perform its statuty duty under section-154 Crpc. ्ቚाथ#

कोउ्ሹ परिቝኌस्थधितयोंमेंवादलानेकाकोईअधि!काी्ቚ ा्቎ नहींहै।्ቚ ाथ#्ቛ ााकिकसीदू

उ्ቌेश्यकीपूቔኌतहेतुवाद्ቚ स्तुतकिकयागयाहै।अतः्ቚ ाथ# का्ቚ ाथ$नाप्ቔ किनस्तकिकयेजाने

योग्यहै।

"

¶6Relevant portion of the order dated 09.06.2023 whereby the revision preferred by the applicant on account of being aggrieved by the order dated

03.06.2022 has been rejected, on reproduction, reads as under:- "8.

प्ቔावलीकेसम्यक्परिशीलनसेयहस्प्ቖ होहाहैकिकपुनी्ቌणकता$ /

आवेदकने

किव्ቛानकिव)ाणन्यायालयकेसम्ቌ दण्ड्ቚ किHयासंकिहताकी!ाा156 (3)

केअ!ीन

्ቚ स्तुतउपो्ሹ वቓኌणत्ቚ ाथ$ना-

प्ቔ मेंयहकथनकिकयाहैकिककिवप्ቌीगणसांवला्ቚ साद

पाण्डेयवओम्ቚ काशपाण्डेयने)कबन्दीकिवभागकेअशिभलेखकीफज# वकूटधि)त

नकलतैया ककेगाटासंख्या974

कबा0.1350 हे0

जोाजस्वखातेमेंनवीनपतीके

रूपमेंदज$ है,

कोसांवला्ቚ सादनेअपनेनामअंकिकतकवालिलया,

जोसहायक)कबन्दी

अधि!काीअकबपु्ቛ ााजाँ) किकयेजानेप फज# पायागयाऔ उपजिजलाधि!काी

आलापु्ቛ ाा33/39

भूाजस्वअधि!किनयमकेतहतपारितआदेशकोकिनस्तकिकयेजाने

कामतव्य्ሹ किकयागया।उसके्ቛ ााकिदनांक10.12.2019

कोउपसं)ालक)कबन्दी

अयोध्याकैम्पअम्बेडक नग केसम्ቌ !ाा48 (3)

उ०्ቚ०जोत)कबन्दीअधि!किनयमके

अन्तग$तवाजदाय्ቚ ाथ$ना-

प्ቔ्ቚ स्तुतकिकया,

जिजसकेआ!ा प्ቇ ामसेमी, पगना अकबपु,

तहसीलभीटी,

जिजलाअम्बेडक नग केजोत)कबन्दीआका-

प्ቔ23 भाग-1,

खातासंख्या673

प अंकिकतकिनगानीसंख्या3414

अकिदनांक30.10.1972 की

अमलदामदकोफज# वकूटधि)तहोनेकेकाणकिनस्तक किदयागया।इसकेबावजूद

किवप्ቌीसांवला्ቚ सादनेफज# खतौनीकोबडौदापूव#्ቇामीणबैंकशाखा,

महरूआगोलाके

प्ቌ मेंबन्!कखक ऋणआहरितक लिलयाहै।

9.

इस्ቚ का उपो्ሹ किववे)नसेयह्ቚ कटहोताहैकिकाजस्वअशिभलेखोंमेंनवीनपती

खातेमेंदज$ भूकिमगाटासंख्या

कबा

0.1350

हे 0

कोकिवप्ቌीसांवला्ቚ साद्ቛ ाास्वयं

केनामदज$ कालेनेऔ उसकोबं!कखक बैंकसेऋण्ቚ ा्቎ क लेनेकोलेक प्ቌों

केमध्यकिववादहै।

प्ቔावलीप उपलब्!्ቚ प्ቔोंकेअवलोकनसे्ቚ कटहोताहैकिक्ቚ स्तुत

अमलदामदसन्1972

मेंकायाजानाकहागयाहै,

जिजसकेसम्बन्! मेंकईव्ቧ$ व्यतीत

होनेकेउपांतपुनी्ቌणकता$्ቛ ााशिशकायतकीगयी।यहभी्ቚ कटहोताहैकिक्ቚ्቞ गत

भूकिमकेसम्बन्! मेंकईवादकिवशिभ्ቐ न्यायालयोंमेंलቝኌम्बतहेहैं।

इसस्त प यहकहना

समी)ीनहोगाकिकयकिदकिवप्ቌीगण्ቛाााजस्वअशिभलेखोंयाकशिथतबैंकमेंकोईकूट)ना

याछलकारितकिकयागयाथा

,

तोउसकेसम्बन्! मेंसंबंधि!तकिवभागयाबैंक्ቛ ाासमुधि)त

काय$वाहीकनी)ाकिहए

,

लेकिकनऐसाकिकयाजाना्ቚ थमदृ्ቖ्‌यापरिलቝኌ_छतनहींहोहाहै।

यहभी्ቚ कटहोताहैकिक्ቚ्቞ गतभूकिमनवीनखातेकीभूकिमकहीगयीहै

,

जो्ቇामसमाजके

अधि!का्ቌे्ቔ मेंआताहै

,

लेकिकनसम्बቝኌन्!त्ቇ ाम्ቚ !ान्ቛ ााभीकोईकाय$वाहीकिकया

जानापरिलቝኌ_छतनहींहोताहै।

उपो्ሹ परिቝኌस्थधितयोंमेंकिव्ቛानकिव)ाणन्यायालयने

प्ቔावलीप उपलब्! तथ्योंकोअपनेकिव)ा मेंलिलयाहैऔ्ቚ कणमेंकोईसं्ሺेयअपा!

काकारितकिकयाजानानहींपातेहुएपुनी्ቌणकता$ के्ቚ ाथ$ना-

प्ቔ अन्तग$त!ाा156 (3)

दं०्ቚ०सं०कोकिनस्तकिकयाहै,

जिजसमेंकोईकिवधि!क्ቔुकिटपरिलቝኌ_छतनहींहोहीहै।अतः

उसमेंकोईहस्त्ቌेपकीआवश्यकतानहींहै।पुनी्ቌणकता$/

आवेदक्ቛ ाा्ቚ स्तुतदाቝኌण्डक

पुनी्ቌणयाधि)काकेमेमोमेंउठायीगयीउपो्ሹ वቓኌणतआपलिcयांआ!ाहीनहैं।त्቎ुसा

्ቚ स्तुतदाቝኌण्डकपुनी्ቌणयाधि)काबलहीनहैऔ किनस्तकिकयेजानेयोग्यहै।"

¶7Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

¶8Section 156 Cr.P.C., on reproduction, reads as under: "156. Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case.

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned."

¶9On the perusal of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and precedents of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court, it is well settled proposition of law that the concerned Magistrate has on institution of written complaint regarding commission of cognizable offence has the following options:-

(i) At the pre-cognizance stage-he may direct to concerned police station to register F.I.R. on the basis of facts narrated in the complaint if commission of congnizable offence disclosed prima facie and Investigating officer would conduct the investigation. Thus the Magistrate exercises a very limited power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and so is it's discretion. It does not travel into the arena of merit of the case, if such case was fit to proceed further.

(ii) At the post cognizance-after taking cognizance, he may adopt procedure of complaint cases provided under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. If the Magistrate is not satisfied with the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer in report submitted under section 173 Cr.P.C. then the Magistrate may take cognizance upon original complaint sent to S.H.O. at pre-cognizance stage and proceed further to examine the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C.

(iii) Rejection of a complaint at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not debar institution of second regular complaint. It would be post-cognizance stage, if the Magistrate takes cognizance on the original complaint or after rejection at pre-cognizance stage, if second complaint is filed by the complainant. In genuine cases, if averments of the complainant are true and trustworthy or these are found so after preliminary inquiry, then the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may direct the S.H.O. to register F.I.R. and conduct investigation on the basis of averments of the complaint.

(iv) The Magistrate may dismiss the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. if by way of instituting complaint, defence version is created to absolve the complainant from the case registered earlier or on the basis of allegations made in the complainant, if dispute is purely of civil nature or the Magistrate considers that the complaint is false and frivolous.

(v) The Magistrate has to power to test the truth and veracity of the allegations levelled against the proposed accused persons and if there is no substance in the averments of the complainant then at pre-cognizance stage, the complaint may be dismissed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

(vi) In the facts and circumstances of a particular case, Magistrate may take cognizance on the basis of the complaint instituted before him and may adopt the procedure provided under Sections 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C. and if there is no substance in the prima-facie evidence adduced by the complainant, the complaint may be dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶9In the present scenario of the society, several false and frivolous complaints are being filed by the unscrupulous litigants. Therefore, heavy duties have been cast upon the concerned Magistrate to exercise above mentioned discretion consciously, expeditiously and judiciously on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case to ensure that faith of the litigants in the Justice Delivery System of India should be maintained at interest of justice should not be defeated.

¶10On the basis of facts narrated in the complaint, the complainant is capable to adduce evidence regarding alleged incident of misappropriation of property of government school and trees, etc., by the respondents. The respondents abused the complainant indicating his caste as per the facts narrated in the complaint. These facts may be proved by adducing evidence by the complainant. This fact that respondents are pressurizing the complainant to compromise the matter is within the knowledge of complainant, it may also be proved by the complainant by adducing evidence.

¶11On the basis of above discussions, this application is liable to be rejected.

¶12From the contents of the impugned orders, it reflects that the applicant in the complaint has alleged that by committing fraud by one Sanwala Prasad has got his name mutated in the revenue record related to the land which in fact was recorded as Naveen Parti and thereafter took the loan from the bank by mortgaging the said land and as such it appears that with an oblique motive, the applicant preferred the application under Section 156(3) CrPC and as such the order dated 03.06.2022 dismissing the complaint affirmed by the order dated 09.06.2023 to the view of this Court is not liable to be interfered. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 8.12.2023/Mohit Singh/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench