Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 910 (ALL)

Lalit Kumar v. State of U. P.

2025-07-07

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellant - Lalit Kumar challenging the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) / Additional Session Judge, Ballia in Criminal Misc. Case No.130 of 2024 (Lalit Kumar Vs. Kaushal Kumar Singh, Advocate and others), Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia whereby the application moved by the appellant under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was ordered to be registered as a complaint case. 2. Heard Sri Maha Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 6 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he had moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for lodging of the F.I.R. against the accused persons but the learned trial court by passing an illegal order committed gross mistake and ordered the said application to be treated as complaint case. It is also submitted that the appellant belongs to the weaker section of the society and is a member of SC/ST community. The opposite party nos.2 to 6 are also advocate along with the appellant in the District Court at Ballia but they are very powerful and influential persons and always use to threaten the appellant. On 1.3.2024 at about 12:00 Noon, the appellant saw the opposite parties making assault upon the librarian Shivji Singh, who is an employee in Criminal & Revenue Bar Association, Ballia and when he himself protested the same they hurled abuses by caste related remarks and also made assault upon him by kicks and fists and in the meanwhile, on exhortation of opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.3 kicked him over his chest and he sustained serious injuries. The incident was recorded in the CCTV camera. The incident was recorded in the CCTV camera. The matter was reported to the police station and he was medically examined but the police subsequently did not lodge the F.I.R. and when an application was moved to the senior police officials and other authorities on 6.3.2024, the S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali called him and pressurized to make compromise with the opposite parties and refused to lodge his F.I.R. Ultimately an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alongwith the medical papers, the copy of the application given to the S.P., Ballia and other relevant documents was moved to the court but the learned court declined to pass an order for the registration of the F.I.R. The learned Special Judge completely ignored the fact that the appellant was not capable of collecting the evidence of CCTV footage and other relevant evidence and expressed its view that since the appellant is fully acquainted with the opposite parties and no serious injuries were found in the supplementary medical report, the matter was not of such kind that required an F.I.R. to be registered. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary manner ignoring the settled legal principles for the disposal of an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. There is illegality and perversity in the said order and the same is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal. 5. The core issue involved in this matter is that whether a Special Judge has power to treat the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and secondly if it is so, whether in the instant case the Court concerned committed error for not passing an order to lodge a police case on the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. but passed an order of treating it as a criminal complaint. As contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Special Judge had no power to treat his application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. As contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Special Judge had no power to treat his application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. He also assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) merely impressed upon the fact that since the appellant was fully aware of all the facts relating to the incident and he was also acquainted with the opposite parties by their names and address, a Police investigation in the present case was never necessitated and passed the impugned order to treat the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint, which was an erroneous view taken by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act). 6. The Court firstly enters into the dispute relating to the power of the Magistrate to register an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a criminal complaint. The learned counsel for the appellant proceeds with the plea that since the allegations made in the said application disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate was bound to pass an order directing to the police to register F.I.R. in this matter. 7. The said dispute has no more Res integra and on the basis of relevant judicial pronouncements it can be averred that the law recognises the power of the Court to treat an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a criminal complaint. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court got an opportunity to deal with the issue in Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another, A.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court 571 and the legal dictum promulgated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted here-in-below : "But a magistrate need not order any such investigation if he proposes to take cognizance of the offence. Once he takes cognizance of the offence he has to follow the procedure envisaged in Chapter XV of the Code. A reading of Section 202 (1) of the Code would convince that the investigation referred to therein is of a limited nature. The magistrate can direct such an investigation to be made either by a police officer or by any other person. Such investigation is only for helping the magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. The magistrate can direct such an investigation to be made either by a police officer or by any other person. Such investigation is only for helping the magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. This can be discerned from the culminating words in Section 202 (1) i.e. or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other persons as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This is because he has already taken cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint, and the domain of the case would thereafter vest with him." 9. Further, a Full Bench of this High Court in Ram Babu Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and others , (2001) 43 ACC 50 (F.B.) held that when a complaint containing elements of a cognizable offence is received by a Magistrate, different courses are open to him. He may with the aid of power conferred by Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. direct the police to register a case and investigate in the manner as provided in Chapter XII or he may treat the same as complaint and proceed in the manner contemplated in Chapter XV of the Code. It was further held that if he adopts the second mode in terms of Chapter XV, his decision cannot be faulted with for not acceding to the request of the complainant for an investigation by the police. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Sukhwasi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2007) 59 ACC 739 also held in specific terms that a Magistrate can treat an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and the Magistrate besides even after taking congnizance and proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code order investigation even though of a limited nature. 11. All the three judgments quoted above are mentioned in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, Ballia. The legal position was further clarified in Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau Vs. State of Gujarat , (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 185 wherein the power of the Magistrate to treat an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same echoes in the findings given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Gujarat , (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 185 wherein the power of the Magistrate to treat an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same echoes in the findings given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others , 2015 (6) SCC 287 . 12. From the above, no doubt remains that if the Magistrate receives an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. disclosing a cognizable offence, he is fully empowered to treat it as a private criminal complaint and an argument contrary to that is a clunky plea. 13. Another issue to be examined is as to what type of applications moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. may be treated as a complaint case. 14. The authority judgment on the issue was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. and others , 2002 All LJ 1225. While dealing with such issue, certain suggestions were given to the Magistrate in the aforesaid pronouncement. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted as here-in-below : "21. The scheme of Cr.P.C. and the prevailing circumstances require that the option to direct the registration of the case and its investigation by the police should be exercised where some "investigation" is required, which is of a nature that is not possible for the private complainant, and which can only be done by the police upon whom statute has conferred the powers essential for investigation, for example (1) where the full details of the accused are not known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation, or (2) where recovery of abducted person or stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons, or (3) where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused evidence is required to be collected and preserved. To illustrate by example cases may be visualised where for production before Court at the trial (a) sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the place of incident; or (b) recovery of case property is to be made and kept sealed; or (c) recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; or (d) preparation of inquest report; or (e) witnesses are not known and have to be found out or discovered through the process of investigation. 22. But where the complainant is in possession of the complete details of all the accused as well as the witnesses who have to be examined and neither recovery is needed nor any such material evidence is required to be collected which can be done only by the police, no "investigation" would normally be required and the procedure of complaint case should be adopted. The facts of the present case given below serve as an example. It must be kept in mind that adding unnecessary cases to the diary of the police would impair their efficiency in respect of cases genuinely requiring investigation. Besides even after taking cognizance and proceeding under Chapter XV the Magistrate can still under Section 202(1) Cr. P.C. order investigation, even though of a limited nature (see para 7 of JT (2001) 2 (SC) 81 : ( (2001) 2 SCC 628 : AIR 2001 SC 571 )" 15. If the aforesaid principle of law is translated into the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the incident has taken place in the Court campus in the day time, when the Court was open. It is pertinent to note that both the sides the appellant as well as the respondents no.2 to 6 are advocates in the same Civil Court at District Ballia. The proposed accused persons and the appellant are very well acquainted with each other. The appellant is fully aware of the names and addresses of the proposed accused persons. It is pertinent to note that both the sides the appellant as well as the respondents no.2 to 6 are advocates in the same Civil Court at District Ballia. The proposed accused persons and the appellant are very well acquainted with each other. The appellant is fully aware of the names and addresses of the proposed accused persons. The witnesses of the incident are also known to him and their names have been specifically mentioned in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The contents of the said application show that no issue of recovery of any property or other incriminating article is required to be collected in a police investigation, hence no evidence has to be collected by the police and the complainant is competent enough to adduce relevant evidence before the Court at his own level. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a submission that since the incident has been captured in CCTV camera installed in the Court campus, the appellant is not capable of taking the extracts of the CCTV footage and since in a police investigation the police may easily collect the same which is a relevant piece of evidence against the proposed accused persons, the matter should have been sent to the police for investigation after lodging of an F.I.R. Per contra, the learned State counsel has made a convincing submission that the copy of the CCTV footage may be obtained by the Court itself if it proceeds to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. either itself or directs an investigation by the police in a complaint case. I find myself in complete agreement with what was pleaded by the learned State counsel. 17. The copies of the medical reports have been filed by the appellant alongwith his application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and further he has submitted his caste certificate as well before the Court. Hence, there appears no need for passing an order for registration of F.I.R. and investigation by the police because the appellant himself is fully aware with the names and addresses of the accused persons and he is also having entire relevant evidence pertaining to the alleged incident. Hence, the learned Special Judge applying the correct approach rightly held that it was not a case which requires any investigation by the police and it ought to be registered as a complaint case. Hence, the learned Special Judge applying the correct approach rightly held that it was not a case which requires any investigation by the police and it ought to be registered as a complaint case. The abovementioned issue is decided in the aforesaid manner. 18. Hence, from the above discussion and relying upon the pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court as well, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order that may require any interference through exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The correctness of the impugned order is not liable to be questioned. The learned Magistrate has committed no mistake in passing the order to treat the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the appellant as a criminal complaint. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.