Allahabad High Court
Raj Bahadur Rai vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 22 March, 2021
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 490 of 2021 Revisionist :- Raj Bahadur Rai Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Yogesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 11.1.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Varanasi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 942 of 2020 (Raj Bahadur Rai vs. Ashutosh Pratap Singh & others) whereby the application filed by the revisionist under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
The counsel for the revisionist argues that in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. a clear cognizable case was made out and it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to either have directed for lodging the FIR or to have taken recourse under section 190 Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) SCC 1 as well as the judgement of this Court dated 26.11.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 4424 of 2019 (Babooram vs. State of U.P. and 2 others.).
On perusal of the application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is on record, a clear cognizable case is made out inasmuch as the revisionist has alleged i.e. truck and machine were taken by the use of force which clearly makes out a congizable case. He further places on record the fact that the finding recorded to the effect that the truck in possession of the revisionist is perverse and in any case there is no finding with regard to machine, to which the allegations were levelled that the same has been taken by the private respondents.
Considering the judgement cited as well as on perusal of the application filed, I have no hesitation in holding that a clear cognizable case was made out. At this stage, notices to the prospective accused are not being issued as there no right to be heard at pre-cognizance stage as has been held by this Court in the case of Babooram (supra).
The Special Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Varanasi is directed to take a fresh decision on the application under section 156(3) Cr.PC and pass fresh orders taken into account the judgement referred above within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The order dated 11.1.2021 is set aside.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed in terms of the said order.
Order Date :- 22.3.2021 Puspendra