Allahabad High Court
Dilawar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 8 October, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1671 of 2020 Revisionist :- Dilawar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Vipin Chandra Pandey,Kaushlesh Datt Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 15.09.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, District Agra in Misc. Case No. 89 of 2020 (Dilawar Singh Vs. unknown) whereby application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been rejected.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is owner of Trailer bearing registration No. RJ 05 GC 0128 and that on 12.02.2020 his vehicle was being taken away by driver namely Natwar Singh from Agra to Firozabad and on the way near Firozabad road, the driver parked and locked his vehicle on road side and went to Government Hospital to take some medicine. In the meantime, the said vehicle was taken away by some unknown miscreants. It has been submitted that the application filed by the applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of first information report, discloses commission of cognizable offence but it was rejected by the court below in an arbitrary manner vide order impugned and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that the impugned order is perfectly legal just and proper which calls for no interference by this Court and therefore the impugned order is liable to be upheld by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State.
It is well settled that before exercising jurisdiction under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is required to apply his mind and in case a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the direction for investigation by police may be issued. No doubt in appropriate cases, the Magistrate may decline to issue such direction and may reject the application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., however, the jurisdiction under section 156(3) Cr.P.C has to be exercised judiciously considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case. In appropriate cases the magistrate can verify the veracity of allegations made in application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
In case of Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 2007 decided on 16.03.2015, while dealing with the exercise of power under Section 156(3) CrPC by the Magistrate, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
".... the direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone instance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed."
Keeping in view the settled position of law, it may be seen that in the instant matter the conclusion of the court below that the allegation of theft of vehicle does not appear credible is not based on any satisfactory material. Here it may be observed that revisionist has alleged that soon after the incident, his driver has informed the police by making a telephonic call at no. 100 and approached the concerned police station for registration of case. It has also been alleged that when the police did not register a case, the revisionist has made a complaint to S.P concerned but despite that the first information report was not registered. Thereafter the application under section 156(3) CrPC was moved before the court below. Here it may be observed that while dealing with an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the nature of allegations has also to be kept in mind. In the instant matter there were allegations that a vehicle has been stolen from road. The revisionist has not named any person in application under section 156(3) CrPC and in view of nature of allegation that a vehicle has been stolen from road, it was quite desirable that the matter be investigated by the police, particularly due to the reason that the alleged miscreants were unknown and the matter involved recovery of vehicle. No doubt it may also be investigated whether in fact any such theft has ever taken place or not.
Considering the entire facts of the matter it is apparent that the court below has ignored the nature of allegations made in application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and committed error by rejecting the application of revisionist by merely observing that the allegations of revisionist do not appear credible. Considering all the facts of the matter it appears quite desirable that matter be investigated by police.
In view of aforesaid the impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the court below to pass an order afresh in accordance with law.
Revision is allowed in above terms.
Order Date :- 8.10.2020 S.Ali