Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2910 (ALL)

Manoj Gupta v. State of U. P.

2016-08-23

SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Shamsher Bahadur Singh,J. Heard Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nirmit Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 26.5.2016 passed on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Manoj Gupta Versus Riyaz Ahmad and others) by the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow, whereby the application has been ordered to be treated as complaint and applicant has been directed to appear on 20.6.2016 for recording his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also against the order dated 23.6.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2016 (Manoj Gupta Versus State of U.P. and others) by Sessions Judge, Lucknow. Admitted fact of the case is that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant with the prayer to direct Station House Officer concerned to register and investigate the case, wherein it has been averred that after execution of sale deed in favour of the applicant, opposite party no.2, Riyaz Ahmad executed another sale deed in favour of respondent no.3, Smt. Nirmala Shukla for area of 500sq feet and she has constructed a house on more area than land purchased by her. The said application was ordered to be treated as complaint by the impugned order dated 26.5.2016. On repeated query, learned counsel for the applicant could not demonstrate any illegality in the impugned order. As per, settled legal position, the Magistrate has option to treat the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case. Learned Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge have placed reliance on law laid down in the cases of Sukhwasi Versus State of U.P. and others 2007 (59) page 739 and Ram Sagar Patel Versus State of U.P. 2008 (62) ACC page 437, wherein this Court held that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint for cogent reasons. After perusal of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. learned Magistrate opined that all facts relating to commission of offence are within the knowledge of applicant and he can conveniently adduce evidence to prove the guilt without any assistance by way of police investigation. In view of above discussion, I find no illegality in the impugned orders. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.