Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2628 (ALL)

ANJU v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-07-22

RAJESH CHANDRA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J.—This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.4.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Criminal Case No. 36 of 2009, Smt. Anju v. Vipin Kumar and others, under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., P.S. Tanda, District Rampur. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner Smt. Anju filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. against seven accused persons mentioning therein that the petitioner was married to the accused No. 1, Vipin Kumar on 9.3.2002 and sufficient dowry was given at the time of her marriage. However, the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry and they started teasing and harassing the petitioner for bringing more dowry. In the year 2003 a son was born from this wedlock and sufficient cash, clothes and jewellery were given at that time. But again the accused persons were not satisfied and they started demanding Rs. 5.00 lacs in cash. The petitioner was turned out of her in-laws house on 20.6.2008 and as such she was compelled to live with her parents. The accused persons again contacted the petitioner on 11.6.2009 at her parental house and demanded Rs. 5.00 lacs, but her parent showed their inability. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner had gone to the police station, but the report was not registered. Thereafter the petitioner personally handed over an application to the Superintendent of Police, Rampur on 22.1.2009, but no action was taken. 4. After filing of the aforesaid application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. the Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 24.2.2009. In this order the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the matter may be looked into after registering the application as a complaint case. Thereafter the application was registered as a complaint case and the matter was fixed for the statement of the petitioner under Section 200, Cr.P.C. Now the petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside that order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Magistrate has committed illegality by registering her application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. The Magistrate ought to have sent the application to the police station concerned for the registration of the FIR and investigation in the case. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Magistrate has committed illegality by registering her application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. The Magistrate ought to have sent the application to the police station concerned for the registration of the FIR and investigation in the case. 7. Learned AGA on the other hand argued that the Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order as it is well settled that when an application is moved under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. the Magistrate may send it to the police station for the registration and investigation of the case or the Magistrate may treat it as a complaint case and may proceed under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. I have considered over the respective arguments. In this reference a Full Bench decision of this High Court in Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P., 2001(43) ACC 50, may be referred in which the Hon’ble High Court held as under : “Coming to the second question noted above, it is to be at once stated that a provision empowering a Court to act in a particular manner and a provision creating a right for an aggrieved person to approach a Court or authority, must be understood distinctively and should not be mixed up. While Sections 154, 155, sub-sections (1) and (2) of 156 Cr.P.C. confer right on an aggrieved person to reach the police, 156(3) empowers a Magistrate to act in a particular manner in a given situation. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that where a bare application is moved before Court only praying for exercise of powers under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. it will remain an application only and would not be in the nature of a complaint. It has been noted above that the Magistrate has to always apply his mind on the allegations in the complaint where he may use his powers under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. In this connection, it may be immediately added that where in an application, a complaint states facts which constitute cognizable offence but makes a defective prayer, such an application will not cease to be a complaint nor can the Magistrate refuse to treat it as a complaint even though there be no prayer seeking trial of the known or unknown accused. The Magistrate has to deal with such facts as constitute cognizable offence and for all practical purposes even such an application would be a complaint. Moreover, this Court in the case of Yogendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2005(51) ACC 890 (All), has held that application filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Can be treated as complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and no separate complaint is required to be filed. In the case of Joseph Mathuri @ Vishveswaranand and another v. Swami Sachchidanand Harishakshi and another, 2001 (Suppl) ACC 957 (SC), the application was moved by the complainant under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Before the Magistrate for directing the police to register the case against the appellant. In that matter Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there was nothing wrong if the application was directed to be treated as complaint.” 9. In the light of the above noted judgments, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ————