Allahabad High Court
Smt. Priti And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:105983
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5118 of 2024
Smt. Priti And 3 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Vivek Kumar Maheshwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Ghan Shyam Das
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Maheshwari, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Revisionist Smt. Priti and three others have approached this court by means of present criminal revision on the ground regarding impropriety and validity of the order dated 02,09.2024 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (herein after referred as Jurisdictional Magistrate), Court No. 1, Mazaffarnagar in Compliant Case No. 2439/9 of 2018 wherein the Jurisdictional Magistrate rejected the application under Section 198 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionists.
4. The factual matrix of the case is that the son of complainant is an Army man and on his behalf the complainant filed a complaint which was entertained by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Statement of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and revisionists were summoned by the Jurisdiction Magistrate invoking its power contained under Section 304 of Cr.P.C. In pursuance of that case statements of witnesses under Section 244 Cr.P.C. were recorded, the charges were framed against the revisionists. and statements under Section 246 Cr.P.C. are in constitution. Thereafter the revisionists moved the present application with a prayer to drop the proceedings for want of compliance under Section 198(i)(b) read with Section 198(4) of Cr.P.C. The Jurisdictional Magistrate while rejecting the application of the revisionists imposing Rs. 1,000/- cost observed that bar of Section 198 Cr.P.C. is only for cognizance and the present matter is not at the stage of cognizance. But the cross examination of the witnesses are going on.
5. Feeling aggrieved from that order this criminal revision has been preferred on the ground that though the provisions contained in Section 198(i)(b) and 198(4) Cr.P.C. are mandatory but ignoring the mandatory provisions the impugned order has been passed, therefore, it is liable to be set aside by this court invoking its power.
6.Learned counsel for the revisionists urged that though the provisions under Section 198(i)(b) read with Section 198(4) of Cr.P.C. are mandatory. Without obtaining a written certificate of Commanding Officer, no such complaint can be filed but without any such certificate the present proceeding is going on. It is thus submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. representing for the State as well as learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 urged that in the matter after conclusion of proceeding under Section 244 Cr.P.C. the charges against the revisionists have been framed and cross examination of witnesses under section 244 Cr.P.C. is going on, when a charge in any criminal proceeding is framed, no proceeding can be dropped by other way except passing final judgement either in acquittal or conviction after trial.
8. It is thus contended that the present revision has no force at all, it is devoid on merit, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the revisionist drew the attention of the court towards the provision contained under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. and tried to substantiate his submissions that the court has power to drop the proceeding discharging the revisionist due to the words used under Section 145(2) Cr.P.C. that at any previous stage. But this court is not inclined with submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists because the words used in Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. are itself clear that such provisions is applicable before stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. but not after that.
10. In view of above, the present criminal revision is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
11. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) May 7, 2026 RPD