Shyam Sunder Vijay Son Of Late … vs State Of U.P. And Vinai Kumar Jain … on 23 March, 2007

Allahabad High Court
Shyam Sunder Vijay Son Of Late … vs State Of U.P. And Vinai Kumar Jain … on 23 March, 2007
Author: P Srivastav
Bench: P Srivastav


JUDGMENT

Poonam Srivastav, J.

1. Heard Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved from the orders passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, Etah dated 1.11.2006 refusing to issue a direction to register and investigate the allegations made in an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the revisional order dated 20.1.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Etah. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 is illegally occupying the position of Secretary and Manager of Kothiwal Adhhatiya Post Graduate College, Kasganj. The allegation is that the respondent has committed fraud and manufactured certain documents with an ulterior motive to usurp the seat of the Manager as well as Secretary of the Society. The alleged act of forgery is regarding the membership of the members of General Body, who are to participate in the election before the Deputy Registrar, Chits Funds and Societies, Agra Division, Agra. The allegation is that the respondent No. 2 tampered and fabricated certain words and lines in the affidavits in the proceedings relating to the election of the society, which is to be held in accordance with amended Bylaws. A complaint was made before the Deputy Registrar, who decided the matter in favour of the respondent No. 2. Another complaint was given to the S.S.P. Etah for a direction to S.H.O., Police Station Kasganj to register a first information report, since the Deputy Registrar declined to initiate proceedings and no report was lodged. The instant application was moved before the Magistrate for a direction to the concerned police station to register and get the matter investigated. The learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that the allegations can very well be looked into after obtaining evidence of the handwriting expert etc. and therefore, directed the application to be registered as a complaint case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. 2007 (57) A.C.C. 61.

3. I have perused the said judgment, which deals with case under Section 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. where the Court came to a conclusion that the Magistrate at the stage of issuing a direction to the police to register and investigate the matter, has not to enter into consideration of genuineness of the allegations. I am in complete agreement with the aforesaid judgment. It is a case where a victim was abducted and allegation was that he was killed and accused had indulged in effacing the evidence. The facts of the present case is entirely different. The petitioner has already initiated proceedings before a competent authority. It does not require any investigation by the police. Another decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is, Lal Chand Nishad v. State of U.P. 2007 (57) A.C.C. 46. In this case also commission of cognizable offence was disclosed and aggrieved person was not inclined to file a complaint. The reason for direction to register and investigate the matter was that the complaint may not be in the knowledge of a number of things which could be only deciphered or brought forth after an investigation. In the instant case, the facts are absolutely different. It is clear that the dispute is amongst certain members of the Society for which a complete procedure has been provided under the Societies Registration Act which has already been taken up by the complainant. The matter relates to certain membership dispute which can, by no stretch of imagination be better highlighted than the petitioner himself and investigation by the police is uncalled for. There are certain cases where the Court after analyzing the facts and circumstances came to conclusion that it is not a fit case for direction to the police to register investigate the mutter. In case the argument of the learned Counsel the petitioner is accepted then in every application or allegations brought before the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. even in cases where the Magistrate is satisfied that prima facie cognizable offence appears to have been committed, he must direct the police to register and investigate. The ratio of the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel is only where it appears that a cognizable offence is likely to have been committed and the aggrieved person has been deprived to bring his allegations by means of first information report, then obviously the Magistrate has no option but to follow the mandate of law and issue direction for proper investigation. The principles laid down in various decisions do not apply to the facts of the present case and no straight jacket formula can be given in respect of each and every application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by a person said to be aggrieved. The Magistrate has to look into the allegations without adventing to the correctness of the allegation or the weight of evidence regarding the said allegations.

4. In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any illegality whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate which stands confirmed in criminal revision. No good ground for interference is made out. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *