Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar Fauzi vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others on 12 July, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Judgment Reserved on : 22.05.2018 Judgment Delivered on : 12.07.2018 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1162 of 2015 Revisionist :- Virendra Kumar Fauzi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Y.M. Mishra, Avanish Kumar Shukla, Mithilesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,B.K. Tripathi Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
[1]. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for private opposite parties (opposite party nos. 3-10) and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. (opposite party no. 1) and opposite party no. 2.
[2]. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 213 of 2015, whereby application of the applicant-revisionist under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') to direct the police to investigate the case, was rejected.
[3]. Succinctly, facts of the case are that applicant-revisionist Virendra Kumar Fauzi had filed application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad with allegation that his daughter Sunil was married with Pravesh Pratap Singh, opposite party no. 3 on 15.06.2014. He had spent approximately Rs. 10-12 lakhs in the marriage of his daughter. After marriage, opposite party no. 3 Pravesh Pratap Singh and his family members - Satya Pal Singh, Smt. Sarla Singh, Sanjeev Kumar @ Bantoo, Rajeev Kumar, Smt. Raj Kumari and Smt. Pushpa Singh, opposite party nos. 4 to 9, respectively, started demanding Rs. 5 lakhs as cash. Pravesh Pratap Singh had an illicit relationship with Kumari Saahni Pandey, opposite party no. 10. All these facts were narrated to revisionist Virendra Kumar Fauzi and his family members by his daughter Smt. Sunil. Smt. Sunil was harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband Pravesh Pratap Singh and his family members for demand of dowry. On 03.02.2015, the abovementioned accused family members murdered Smt. Sunil by administering her poison. On the next day of the incidence, that is to say, on 04.02.2015, revisionist Virendra Kumar Fauzi got information about the death of his daughter, by residents of Sirsaganj, the matrimonial hometown of deceased Smt. Sunil. When he reached at Sirsaganj, he came to know that the accused family members had already got conducted her final rites to destroy the evidence. The revisionist then went to the police station to lodge a first information report, but the police did not lodge the report. Thereafter, he met Superintendent of Police, Firozabad in person and send an application by registered post about the incidence to him. Even so, FIR was not lodged at the police station. Then, the revisionist preferred an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned.
[4]. On the aforesaid application, the Magistrate concerned called for report from the police station concerned. The police station concerned reported that Smt. Sunil was pregnant and ill. She was teaching in Primary School, Chanaura, Police Station - Ramgarh at her parental hometown Firozabad. She used to go to her matrimonial home once in a week on week-offs. Her treatment was going on under the supervision of Dr. Mamta Motwani of Sirsaganj, about four months before the occurrence. During that time, one day, she fell on the ground at her parental home, due to which she sustained injury and suffered from pain and thereafter, she was referred to Trauma Centre, Firozabad by Dr. Mamta Motwani. During treatment, she died. After death of Smt. Sunil, her father revisionist Virendra Kumar Fauzi, family members and other persons took away her mortal remains at her matrimonial home and performed her final rituals. The applicant had not lodged any information at the police station about this incidence.
[5]. After considering the facts of application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and police report, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order.
[6]. Hence, this revision.
[7]. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases, viz. Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Another reported in 2006 (1) SCC 627, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409, Hamant Yashwant Dhage v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2016 (6) SCC 273 and Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, learned counsel for the revisionist contended that if content of the application under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. discloses commission of cognizable offence, registration of first information report is mandatory, as per provision of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. It is not permissible for the police to make a preliminary enquiry before registration of the case. He further contended that in case of cognizable offence, the magistrate concerned is bound to direct the police to register and investigate the case.
[8]. Learned counsel for private-opposite parties, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineet Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 contended that where application under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. is presented with false allegations and mala fide intention, due to personal grudge, the magistrate is not bound to order the police to investigate the case.
[9]. Concurring with the submission made by learned counsel for private-opposite parties, learned A.G.A. for the State contended that the magistrate is not bound to order for investigation in each and every case, on application under Section 563 of Cr.P.C.
[10]. From the submissions of both the parties, three main questions arise in this case :
(i) Whether registration of F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.? ;
(ii) Whether police is bound to make investigation if F.I.R. is lodged in cognizable offence? ; and
(iii) Whether the Magistrate is bound to order for investigation if cognizable offence is disclosed in the F.I.R. or application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.?
[11]. To answer the aforesaid questions, it is necessary to look into the following sections of Cr.P.C. :
154. Information in cognizable cases.-(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
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.
157. Procedure for investigation preliminary inquiry.-(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender;
Provided that-
(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case:
1[Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality.] (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub- section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub- section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.
158. Report how submitted.-(1) Every report sent to a Magistrate under section 157 shall, if the State Government so directs, be submitted through such superior officer of police as the State Government, by general or special order, appoints in that behalf.
(2) Such superior officer may give such instructions to the officer in charge of the police station as he thinks fit, and shall, after recording such instructions on such report, transmit the same without delay to the Magistrate.
159. Power to hold investigation or preliminary inquiry.-Such Magistrate, on receiving such report, may direct an investigation, or, if he thinks fit, at once proceed, or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed, to hold a preliminary inquiry into, or otherwise to dispose of, the case in the manner provided in this Code.
[12]. In Mohd. Yousuf's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
........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 makes the position clear 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. 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 person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding".....
............................
The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter. ............
[13]. In Sakiri Vasu's case (surpa), Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.
25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
[14]. In Hamant Yashwant Dhage's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
.........it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an F.I.R. and even where a Magistrate does not do so in explicit words but directs for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, the police should register an F.I.R. Because Section 156 falls within chapter XII of the Code which deals with powers of the police officers to investigate cognizable offences, the police officer concerned would always be in a better position to take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII once F.I.R. is registered in respect of the concerned cognizable offence. ...........
[15]. In Lalita Kumari's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
110. Therefore, in view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
Conclusion/Directions:
111. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
[16]. In all the aforesaid case laws, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the magistrate may direct an investigation to be made by a police officer, under Section 156 of Cr.P.C.
[17]. In Lalita Kumari's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that registration of first information report is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned the cases including matrimonial/family disputes in which preliminary enquiry is to be conducted to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
[18]. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the scope of preliminary enquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received, but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
[19]. In the present case, allegation of dowry dowry death is levelled upon the accused. Dowry death is defined under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code as follows :
2[304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
[20]. To constitute the offence of dowry death, death of woman must have been caused otherwise than under normal circumstances. In the application under Section 156 of Cr.P.C., it is alleged that poison was administered to Smt. Sunil, but from the preliminary enquiry report and medical report, it reveals that Smt. Sunil was treated on 03.02.2015 by Dr. Mamta Motwani at Sindhi Medical Hall, Etawah Road, Sirsaganj and she was referred to Trauma Center, Firozabad, where died her natural death.
[21]. In application under Section 156 of Cr.P.C., applicant-revisionist Virendra Kumar Fauzi has not mentioned the date and time, when he reached at police station to lodge a report. If he had gone to the police station, he must have narrated the date and time when he had gone to the police station to lodge F.I.R. The applicant-revisionist had submitted application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. through his counsel on 16.02.2015, after 13 days of the occurrence.
[22]. In Lalita Kumari's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that in case of abnormal delay/laches in criminal prosecution, the preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the police. In such circumstances, the police has made preliminary enquiry, which is not against law. The police has not committed any error in not lodging the F.I.R. without conducting preliminary enquiry.
[23]. As per provision of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., registration of first information report is mandatory for the police if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence.
[24]. As per proviso of Section 157(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering into an investigation, he shall not investigate the case and report to the magistrate concerned, stating the reason for not investigating the case.
[25]. As per provision of Section 159 of Cr.P.C., on receiving such report, the Magistrate may direct an investigation, or, if he thinks fit, at once proceed, or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed, to hold a preliminary inquiry into, or otherwise to dispose of, the case in the manner provided in Cr.P.C..
[26]. In Section 159 of Cr.P.C., the word 'may' is used. This means that the magistrate is not bound to order for investigation in all the cases. He may dispose of the case otherwise in the manner provided in Cr.P.C.
[27]. Proviso of Section 190(1) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows :
190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
[28]. Accordingly, magistrate may take cognizance upon receiving a complaint of fact which constitute such offence. If magistrate decides to take cognizance on a complaint, then he shall proceed according to Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C. to conduct an enquiry under Section 200, 202 Cr.P.C. and pass appropriate orders.
[29]. From the perusal of all these provisions, it is crystal clear that the magistrate may either accept the police report about not investigating the case or may direct the police to investigate the case or may take cognizance, as provided under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and proceed under Section 200, 202 Cr.P.C.
[30]. Section 159 of Cr.P.C. is applicable in a case where first information report is lodged and officer in charge of police station sends report for not investigating the case as there is no sufficient ground for entering into the investigation. This section is not applicable in case where F.I.R. has not been lodged. If F.I.R. has not been lodged, then Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. will come into force. In Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the word 'may' is used. On application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the magistrate has the same power as he has under Section 159 Cr.P.C.
[31]. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 supp (1) SCC 335 held that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be exercised by the High Courts to quash the entire proceedings including first information report in the following cases :
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156 (1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 1552 (2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
[32]. In Vineet Kumar's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
39. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,...........
[33]. Accordingly, if the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable, then High Court may quash the entire proceedings including the F.I.R. Whether the magistrate is bound to investigate such a case where the allegations made in application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are absurd and inherently improbable, is the question to be decided. Although power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is exercised by High Court, this power cannot be exercised by police officer or magistrate, but if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are absurd and inherently improbable, officer in charge of police station may refuse to investigate the case, holding that there is no sufficient ground for entering into an investigation, as per proviso of Section 157(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
[34]. Similarly, the magistrate may deny to direct the police to investigate the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., if allegations in the application are absurd and inherently improbable. The magistrate may also deny to direct the police to investigate the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for any other good reason.
[35]. Accordingly, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.03.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.
[36]. Resultantly, the instant revision, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.7.2018 I. Batabyal [Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.]