Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 279 (UTT)

POONAM ALKA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-06-29

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. A complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by respondent No. 2 – Kheema Nand Sanwal before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, Nainital against the accused persons. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate called the report from the Police Station concerned. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., took it as a complaint case and summons have been issued to the present applicant vide order dated 20.08.2014. Against the said summoning order, the applicant has preferred a revision before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2014. Hence, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant before this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Heard Mr. Swapnil Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. A.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. D.K. Bankoti, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the records. 3. From the perusal of the records, it appears that there is an inordinate delay in filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which has not been explained sufficiently by the applicant. Nevertheless, two orders, passed by the courts below, have been perused. The only contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that since the offences are cognizable offence, therefore, the learned Magistrate has wrongly treated the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. as complaint case, instead of directing the police station concerned to lodge the FIR. This argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is totally misconceived, as the revisional court has discussed the matter in detail and assigned reasons in its order while dismissing the revision. It is not necessary that in every case of disclosure of cognizable offence a direction must be given to register an FIR. The case of the applicant is that the private respondent abused her, manhandled her and tried to forcibly enter her property. The learned Magistrate in his wisdom, considering the nature of the crime, has taken it as a complaint case. 4. After going through the orders passed by the revisional court as well as learned Magistrate, this Court is also not inclined to interfere in the present matter, as far as the proceedings are concerned. The learned Magistrate in his wisdom, considering the nature of the crime, has taken it as a complaint case. 4. After going through the orders passed by the revisional court as well as learned Magistrate, this Court is also not inclined to interfere in the present matter, as far as the proceedings are concerned. The proceedings shall go on before the court below, in accordance with law. There is also no abuse of process of court and hence no interference is liable to be made in the present matter. 5. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.