Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Smt. Phool Devi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 May, 2026 cites

Sukhwasi Son Of Hulasi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 September, 2007

9. As such, it is apparent that Magistrate is not bound to pass order of investigation by police, even if such application discloses cognizable offence. The Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by the applicant had any substance or not. If the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima-facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application. Even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., in appropriate case according to facts and nature of the offences alleged to have been committed, the Magistrate can decline to direct investigation and in such cases the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint, as held by the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 326 - Full Document

Aleque Padamsee And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 July, 2007

12. This Court can also not loose sight of the Three Judges Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 684), the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, passed in Criminal Revision No. 1640 of 2001 decided on 22.12.2010, wherein it has been held that even an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(4) BNSS) has been rejected, the remedy available to the appellant is to file a complaint case before the court concerned under Section 190 (1) (a) read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C. [now Section 210(1)(a) read with Section 223 of BNSS.]
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 951 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Father Thomas vs State Of U.P. & Another on 22 December, 2010

12. This Court can also not loose sight of the Three Judges Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 684), the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, passed in Criminal Revision No. 1640 of 2001 decided on 22.12.2010, wherein it has been held that even an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(4) BNSS) has been rejected, the remedy available to the appellant is to file a complaint case before the court concerned under Section 190 (1) (a) read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C. [now Section 210(1)(a) read with Section 223 of BNSS.]
Allahabad High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 127 - Full Document

Smt. Masuman W/O Sri Faiz Mohd. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 25 September, 2006

In the case of Smt. Masuman vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2007 (1) ALJ 221 and some other cases, the single judges of the Court have taken a view that if the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses the commission of a prima-facie cognizable offence, then it is obligatory for the magistrate to direct investigation after registration of the FIR on the basis of that application.
Allahabad High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 62 - V Prasad - Full Document
1