# Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 263
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-08-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2028 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bahadur-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40361
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 156
(3)- Application u/s 156 (3)-from bare
perusal of the allegations-prima facie
offence made out-except directing the
S.O. to register and investigate- the
application can not be treated as a
complaint-held
magistrate
is
under
obligation
to
direct
the
S.O.

to
registered and investigate the case. .

Held- Para 5

In
such
circumstances
the
learned
Magistrate was under obligation to direct
the S.O. of police station concerned to
register the case and investigate the
same. If on the basis of the allegation
made in the application under Section
156 (3) Cr. P. C. prima facie cognizable
offence is made out such application
cannot
be
treated
as
a
complaint
because in such cases the learned
Magistrate is under obligation to direct
the S.O. of police station concerned to
register the case and investigate the
same.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All]
Bahadur Singh V. State of U.P. and others
263
 the complexion of an award on merit.
The award being bereft of any discussion
on merit even of claims of the workman
thus,
non-application
of
mind
is
conspicuously discernible in the order.

11. As a result of foregoing
discussion, the award under challenge
cannot be sustained in law. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed and in
consequence, the award dated 3.6.95 is
quashed. In view of above discussion, the
matter is relegated to the Labour court for
decision afresh after affording opportunity
to the petitioner-employer for filing
written statement within a period of one
month which period would commence to
run from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order. It is expected
that the Labour Court shall complete
evidence within two months thereafter
and pass appropriate orders expeditiously
in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.022005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2028 of
2005

Bahadur Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tufail Hasan

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 156
(3)- Application u/s 156 (3)-from bare
perusal of the allegations-prima facie
offence made out-except directing the
S.O. to register and investigate- the
application can not be treated as a
complaint-held
magistrate
is
under
obligation
to
direct
the
S.O.

to
registered and investigate the case. .

Held- Para 5

In
such
circumstances
the
learned
Magistrate was under obligation to direct
the S.O. of police station concerned to
register the case and investigate the
same. If on the basis of the allegation
made in the application under Section
156 (3) Cr. P. C. prima facie cognizable
offence is made out such application
cannot
be
treated
as
a
complaint
because in such cases the learned
Magistrate is under obligation to direct
the S.O. of police station concerned to
register the case and investigate the
same.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Tufail Hasan learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.G.A.

2. This petition is filed against the
order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Firozabad whereby the application under
Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the
petitioner was treated as complaint and
the police station concerned was not
directed
to
register
the
case
and
investigate the same in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 156(3)
Cr. P. C. and the order dated 27.11.2004
passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Firozabad,
whereby the revision filed by the
petitioner was dismissed.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 264
3. It is contended by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the impugned orders
have not been passed in accordance with
the provisions of law. The impugned
orders are illegal because on the basis of
the allegations made in the application
under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. a prima
facie cognizable offence is made out,
even then the learned C.J.M. has not
directed the S.O. of police station
concerned to register the case and
investigate the same, but the application
under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. was
illegally treated as a complaint. The
learned revisional court has also not
considered the manifest error committed
by the learned Magistrate and dismissed
the revision filed by the petitioner on
27.11.2004.

4. This contention has been opposed
by learned A.G.A. by stating that the
impugned order passed by the learned
courts below are perfect orders, there is
no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned orders.

5. From the perusal of the
allegations made in the application under
Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. it appears that on
the basis of the allegations made therein a
prima facie cognizable offence is made
out against the accused and the allegations
are
of
such
nature
which
require
investigation by the police. In such
circumstances the learned Magistrate
was under obligation to direct the S.O. of
police station concerned to register the
case and investigate the same. If on the
basis of the allegation made in the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.
C. prima facie cognizable offence is made
out such application cannot be treated as
a complaint because in such cases the
learned Magistrate is under obligation to
direct
the
S.O.
of
police
station
concerned to register the case and
investigate the same. Therefore the
impugned order dated 28.8.2004 passed
by the learned C.J.M. Firozabad is illegal.
The learned revisional court has not
considered the manifest error committed
by the learned Magistrate in passing the
order dated 28.8.2004 and dismissed the
revision filed by the petitioner on
27.11.2004. Therefore, the order dated
29.11.2004
passed
by
the
learned
Additional Sessions judge, Fast Track
Court no. 4, Firozabad in Criminal
Revision No.176 of 2004 is also illegal.
Consequently, both the abovementioned
orders dated 28.8.2004 passed by the
learned C.J.M. and 27.11.2004 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No. 4, Firozabad
respectively are set aside.

6. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner the learned C.J.M.
Firozabad is directed to pass a fresh order
on the application under Section 156(3)
Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner in
accordance with the provisions of law.

7. With this observation the petition
is finally disposed of.
Petition finally disposed of.
---------