Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 18.10.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ballia by which the Criminal Revision No. 116 of 2003 Vinay Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors. has been dismissed which was preferred against order dated 2.5.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. On 2.5.2003 the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Ballia passed order that order for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the application of the petitioner Vinay Pandey against opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 cannot be made. However, the case was being registered as complaint case and a date was fixed for recording evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Shradhanand Rai and Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and have gone through the record.

3. Annexure-1 is copy of application moved by the petitioner Vinay Pandey under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia on 1.5.2003. Annexure-2 is copy of application which was moved by the petitioner to Superintendent of Police, Ballia on 30.4.2003. These papers show that according to the petitioner, he was going on 24.4.2003 at 9.00 A.M. from his village Harpur, police station Kotwali district Ballia to market. When he reached in front of the house of Prabhu Nath Tiwari, opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are resident of his locality came on the way. Opposite party No. 2 Krishnanand Mishra was armed with licenced revolver, Opposite party No. 3 Arjun Pandey was armed with bet and opposite party No. 4 Awadhesh Pandey was armed with hockey. On exhortation of Krishnanand Mishra, Arjun Pandey and Awadhesh Pandey started to cause injury to him and snatched H.M.T. Wrist watch which fell down on the earth, but was later on taken away by them. It was also written in the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that on his alarm Bharat Pathak, Shripal and Dina Nath Lal reached there. While going away the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 extended threatening. When he went to lodge F.I.R. to police station Kotwali assurance was given for registering the case, but F.I.R. was not written. He waited for four days and thereafter again he went to police station Kotwali on which the Head Moharrir told that first he had to got his injury medically examined, thereafter F.I.R. would be lodged. Then he got his injury medically examined but his F.I.R. was not registered. Hence the application was moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia held that whole evidence is within the control of the complainant and there was no need to make order for investigation of the case and a date was fixed for proceeding with the case as complaint case and for recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. When revision was preferred against this order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ballia held that fact of the case was appreciated by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. The injuries are simple, therefore, if order was not made for directing the police to investigate the case, no illegality has been committed. Aggrieved therefrom, instant writ has been preferred.

8. The question arises as to whether, it was a fit case in which the discretion for directing to make investigation of the crime was to be exercised. A perusal of the record shows that injuries are said to have been caused on 20.4.2003 at 9.00 A.M. He went twice to the police station and Head Moharrir refused to register the crime because there was no injury report. Thereafter, petitioner Vinay Pandey aged about 25 years got himself medically examined on 24.4.2003 at 10.15 A.M. in District Hospital Ballia and following injuries were found on his body.