Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2705 (ALL)

Kamla Devi v. State of U. P.

2016-08-04

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2016
JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records. 2. The application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., moved by applicant regarding incident happened inside her house in her presence, was registered as complaint case by impugned order dated 17.5.2016 passed by 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda. This order of registering the application as complaint is under challenge in present proceeding. 3. This contention of learned AGA appears not unacceptable that according to said application alleged overt acts were committed inside house, and not at any public place or in public view, but applicant had tried to implicate accused for offence under section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, which is not applicable in such matter. 4. If facts of application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is taken to be true, in that case also everything relating to fact is within knowledge of applicant and every evidence relating to it is within her control. There is nothing new that can be exposed after investigation. The trial court has passed order of registering aforesaid application as complaint after considering several judgement of this Court and Apex Court, in which one judgement is of this Court namely, 'Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., 2007(59) ACC 739' in which it has been held as under: "Applications under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are coming in torrents. Provisions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. They should not be used unless there is something unusual and extra ordinary like miscarriage of justice which warrants a direction to the Police to register a case. Such application should not be allowed because the law provides them with an alternative remedy of filing a complaint, therefore, recourse should not normally be permitted for availing the provisions of section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate". 5. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore this application is dismissed.