Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 206 (UTT)

Simantra Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-03-15

R.C.KHULBE

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This revision has been filed by the revisionists for setting aside the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 148 of 2013, Smt. Sharda Devi vs. Simntra Devi and others, whereby the Sessions Judge has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 31 of 2013, Smt. Sharda Devi vs. Simntra Devi and others. 2. Factual Matrix of the case is that Smt. Sharda Devi filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. against the present revisionists in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima. The lower court found that the matter is purely civil in nature and thereafter rejected the application. 3. Aggrieved thereby the order, applicant Smt. Sharda Devi preferred the revision before the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima. The revisional court after hearing both the parties allowed the revision on 24.07.2013 and set aside the order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, it was also directed by revisional court to the learned Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the application as per the law. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision filed under Sections 397/401, Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record placed before the Court. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for revisionists that no prima facie case is made out against the present revisionists. It is a matter of purely civil in nature and no criminal case is made out against the revisionists. 7. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the application filed by Smt. Sharda Devi under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application stating that the matter is purely civil in nature. When the matter came up before the revisional court, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prima facie case is made out for forged will prepared by the present revisionists. It is also on record that after the direction given by the Sessions Judge dated 24.07.2013, the Judicial Magistrate has ordered to register the case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the present revisionists. 8. It is also on record that after the direction given by the Sessions Judge dated 24.07.2013, the Judicial Magistrate has ordered to register the case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the present revisionists. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is very clear that since the order has already been executed by the Judicial Magistrate and an FIR No. 159 of 2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC has also been lodged against the revisionists. This FIR is not challenged in the present revision. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which 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.” 9. From the perusal of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whenever cognizable offence is made out against any person and an application is submitted before the Magistrate, the Magistrate has a power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register an FIR and investigate the matter. 10. From the perusal of the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate found that a cognizable offence is made out and thereupon he ordered to the concerned Police Station to register the case. 11. From the perusal of an order of the learned Sessions Judge, I am also of the view the learned Sessions Judge did not commit any mistake. There is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment and he has passed the order within his jurisdiction. In these circumstances the present revision has no merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. No costs.