At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
For the Appellant: Rakesh Dubey, Advocate. For the Respondent: ----------.
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.
1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved assailing the validity of the order dated 24.12.2013 passed by Special C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 520 of 2013 u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. P.S. Kotwali District Kanpur Nagar whereby the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
It appears that an application under 156 Cr.P.C. was moved in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate with the allegation that during the period when the applicant was in jail, his father was duped by one Devendra Verma, Advocate who misled him to believ
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
e that the Presiding Officer in whose Court applicant's case or matter was pending, was a corrupt officer and there is no possibility to procure bail from that Court without greasing his palm. Further allegation was that under the coercive pressure of this fabricated version Rs. 15,000/- were demanded from applicant's father and out of which Rs. 12,000/- were also coughed up to the aforesaid Advocate. The application also contained the allegations that after his release on bail the balance amount of Rs. 3000/- was further demanded from his father. When the applicant came to know about all these facts he resisted the demand and refused to succumb to the pressure. It was further alleged that on being refused the aforesaid Advocate Devendra Verma threatened him with life. It was also alleged that when the applicant approached the police station and tried to lodge the F.I.R. the police refused to register the case against him as the aforesaid Advocate being the General Secretary of Bar Association wields a lot of clout. Aggrieved by the refusal of police to register the F.I.R. with regard to the commission of aforesaid offences, the Court was approached u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the prayer to direct the investigation into the case after registering the F.I.R.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. Record has been perused.
The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the primary ground which dissuaded the learned Magistrate from ordering the registration of the FIR was that as the amount of Rs. 12000/- was allegedly taken from the father of the applicant fraudulently, only the father would be the aggrieved person, and therefore, an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. ought to have been moved by father and not by the applicant who was his son.
2. This Court is the view that the reasoning given by the lower Court is patently misconceived and is wholly untenable. In fact the allegations contained in the application are of very serious nature in which not only the amount of Rs. 12000/- has been cheated fraudulently from the father but the ostensible purpose for which the cheating was done scandalizes the judicial institution itself. In fact if the allegations are true then in that event even the father of the applicant who took steps in the direction of giving bribe may also have to suffer the consequence of his obnoxious conduct. The nature of allegation is such that it could only have been brought to a logical end through a proper investigation alone. According to the applicant's version he was in jail when some lawyer in order to get him out of the prison deceitfully cheated his father in the name of giving bribe to the judicial Officer. The matter ought to have been investigated regardless to the fact whether the charge is false or true. Both situations may have serious consequences. It is not a case in which filing of a complaint case can ever bring the culprits to book. The Magistrate has abstained from exercising the jurisdiction vested in him on the basis of a reasoning which is wholly against law. The misconception of law is palpable. The Magistrate has acted under the impression as if it was only the father alone from whom the money was taken who could have brought the complaint or the FIR. It is not so. Of course there are certain offence where only the first aggrieved person has the right to bring the complaint. But here in this case the offences alleged do not come in that category or class provided in Criminal Procedure Code.
The impugned order stands quashed and the lower Court is directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
3. Ordinarily this Court does not entertain the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. which assails the validity of refusal done by the Magistrate with regard to the applications seeking registration of the FIR. But it is a case where this Court feels impelled to interfere as the order does not stand the scrutiny in the eyes of law. The order is completely without jurisdiction for the reason of Court's complete failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and that too on absolutely illegal grounds. If the judicial officer refuses to exercise his jurisdiction it is just as objectionable and untenable where he wrongly exercises the jurisdiction though he had none under law. Who can file a complaint or lodge an FIR is a question of law. If the same has been brought by a person who lacks the sanction of law or who is prohibited by some provision of law, then the prosecution as a result of such filing might be illegal. On the other hand if a person entitled to lodge an FIR and bring the complaint is dis-entitled to do so under some wrong conception of law, this is also a pure illegality and this Court must interfere to set the mistake right in order to meet the ends of justice. In the present case a person entitled to lodge the FIR or bring a complaint failed to exercise his legal right because the judicial doors were not kept ajar under a wrong conception of law which the Magistrate had in his mind and which prompted him to pass the impugned order whereby he refused to direct the registration of FIR.
Being non-est in the eyes of law the impugned order stands quashed.
The Court below is directed to pass fresh order in the light of the observations made by the Court in accordance with law.