Allahabad High Court
Virendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 16 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:105724 Court No. - 93 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 555 of 2023 Revisionist :- Virendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- K.K.Rao,Sarvjeet Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Sri K.K. Rao, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
Order on Delay Condonation Application
2. Heard and perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.
3. Cause shown is sufficient.
4. Hence, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned.
5. Let a regular number be allotted to this revision.
Order on Revision
6. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant/revisionist challenging the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Judge)/F.T.C./Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.174 of 2022 (Virendra Singh vs. Swetna and Others), whereby the application moved under section- 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case.
7. The relevant facts of this revision are as below:-
The instant revisionist/applicant moved an application under section- 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegations that the Greater Noida Development Authority executed a lease in his favour for a period of 20 years on 27.05.2003; the applicant expended a lot of money to develop that land and began business of nursery; it is alleged in the application that the opposite party no.6- Rajendra Singh is a land mafia person, who is facing a number of criminal cases being investigated upon by SIT; the opposite party nos.6 and 7 prepared certain forged papers and in connivance with opposite party no.3- Rama Raman, the then CEO of Greater Noida Development Authority, got executed a fresh lease deed in favour of opposite party nos.4 and 5- Shwetna and Madhu Singh on 27.11.2014. It is further alleged in the application that on 04.05.2016 when he went to his nursery on the disputed land, he was attacked and physically assaulted and was threatened not to come to that property again by opposite party nos.6 and 7. It is further said in the application that the opposite parties assured to settle the matter several times between May, 2016 to May, 2022 but nothing has happened till now. Therefore, he seeks to lodge an F.I.R.
8. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the then CEO Greater Noida Development Authority and the rest of the accused persons in connivance with each other prepared certain forged papers. My attention has been drawn to paper no.117 (copy of lease deed) and paper no.118 to show that there is over-writing at certain places; on the basis of their over-writing, it is argued that interpolations were done in the papers. It is further contended that when the lease was granted for a period of 20 years, the opposite party no.3 was not justified at all in executing a new lease deed without cancelling the earlier one.
9. I went through the order in question. The learned trial court placed reliance on a report in which it was disclosed that indeed the lease was granted for a period of 20 years to the applicant but same was cancelled. The learned trial court did not find sufficient material to proceed to lodge an F.I.R. against the CEO Greater Noida Development Authority and rest of the accused persons. The learned trial court further relied on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2007) 9 ADJI (DB), to proceed in the matter treating it as complaint case.
10. I went through all the material on record. The Magistrate/court concerned cannot be expected to act upon an application in a mechanical manner. He shall be failing in his duty in case he fails to apply his mind. Settled position of law is that the Magistrate shall order for registration of a case if application 'discloses' commission of cognizable offence. In my view, the disclosure of cognizable offence cannot be construed to mean replication of words or the facts in such a manner as may fit within four corners of an offence defined in statutes. This is a common knowledge that applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may be drafted cleverly and may be dotted with sham assertions or half truths with legal advice, so as to persuade the courts to spring into action. If such a narrow and short sighted interpretation is done, it will be like playing in the hands of unscrupulous litigant. While passing an order on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the court is expected to apply its judicial mind. He is expected to be judicious, discreet and cautious and not to be swayed by mere use of certain words and legal terminology. He can certainly look for substance in the allegations and existence of life in the assertions.
11. It is not so that once application under section- 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the Magistrate has no option but to order for registration of F.I.R. In my view, the discretion has been well applied by the court below and there is no good ground to interfere in the impugned order. Hence, this criminal revision is dismissed.
12. Copy of this order be sent immediately to the court concerned.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023 Saif