# Bharat Singh Kushwaha Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 34
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2246 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bharat-singh-kushwaha-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51423
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Indian
Succession Act, 1925 - Section 372 -
Revisionist moved application alleging
that his 32-year-old son, living separately
with his wife and children, returned home
at 10:30 p.m., later found unconscious
with injury marks on his neck - In hospital
where he was declared dead, postmortem
conducted through police of police station
- It is alleged that deceased's wife
frequently
quarreled
with
him
over
sending half of his income to her parental
home, on date of incident, had insulted
him, leading him to commit suicide by
hanging - Despite applications to local
police, no F.I.R. registered - Impugned
order - Held, after her husband's death,
opposite party no.2 moved application to
Bank Manager requesting payment of
deposits not be made to revisionist, as
nominee of account - She thereafter filed
Case
under
Succession
Act
seeking
succession certificate in respect of said
deposits for herself and her minor son - To
pressurize her, revisionist approached
S.P., filed application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
against her - Postmortem report of
deceased revealed ligature marks but no
other bodily injury - No documentary
evidence
produced
by
revisionist
to
substantiate his allegation of harassment
by opposite party no.2 leading to suicide -
Last rites of deceased performed by
revisionist's
family,
no
suicide
note
recovered to support alleged allegation -
Revisionist
neither
mentioned
nor
produced any affidavit in support of
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., nor filed
certified copy thereof, as mandated by
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Priyanka
Srivastava (infra). (Para 4, 11 to 13)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application to December, 2023 will be
payable in four equal monthly instalments,
out of which first instalment will be due
from 10th February, 2024 and apart from
that the revisionist will keep on paying
maintenance in aggregate to the tune of
Rs.7,000/- per month to the private
respondents from January, 2024 on regular
basis, till further order of trial court, as
directed in the impugned order.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 34
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2246 of 2023

Bharat Singh Kushwaha ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ajay Sengar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Gaurav Singh Tomar, Sri Subhash
Gosain

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Indian
Succession Act, 1925 - Section 372 -
Revisionist moved application alleging
that his 32-year-old son, living separately
with his wife and children, returned home
at 10:30 p.m., later found unconscious
with injury marks on his neck - In hospital
where he was declared dead, postmortem
conducted through police of police station
- It is alleged that deceased's wife
frequently
quarreled
with
him
over
sending half of his income to her parental
home, on date of incident, had insulted
him, leading him to commit suicide by
hanging - Despite applications to local
police, no F.I.R. registered - Impugned
order - Held, after her husband's death,
opposite party no.2 moved application to
Bank Manager requesting payment of
deposits not be made to revisionist, as
nominee of account - She thereafter filed
Case
under
Succession
Act
seeking
succession certificate in respect of said
deposits for herself and her minor son - To
pressurize her, revisionist approached
S.P., filed application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
against her - Postmortem report of
deceased revealed ligature marks but no
other bodily injury - No documentary
evidence
produced
by
revisionist
to
substantiate his allegation of harassment
by opposite party no.2 leading to suicide -
Last rites of deceased performed by
revisionist's
family,
no
suicide
note
recovered to support alleged allegation -
Revisionist
neither
mentioned
nor
produced any affidavit in support of
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., nor filed
certified copy thereof, as mandated by
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Priyanka
Srivastava (infra). (Para 4, 11 to 13)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & anr. Vs St. of U.P.
& ors., 2015 (6) SCC 287, Criminal Appeal No.
781 of 2012, (Paras 29 to 31)

2. Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. & Others,
(2014) 2 SCC 1, (Paras 49, 53)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,
J.)

Heard
Sri Ajay
Sengar,
learned
counsel for the revisionist, Sri Subhash
Gosain, Advocate, holding brief of Sri
Gaurav Singh Tomar, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A.
for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed
against
impugned
order
dated
2 All. Bharat Singh Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
35
22.03.2023 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal
Misc. Case No. 19 of 2023 (Bharat Singh
Kushwaha Vs. Smt. Vijay Lakshmi @
Bulbul), Police Station- Kotwali Orai,
District- Jalaun.

3. By the impugned order, learned
Magistrate rejected the application u/s 156
(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.

4. The revisionist/applicant, Bharat
Singh Kushwaha, had filed application u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 17.01.2023 contending
that his son, Gopal Krishna alias Rinku
aged 32 years, was living from long
duration separately from him with his wife
Smt. Vijay Lakshmi @ Bulbul and his
children. On 04.09.2022, Gopal Krishna
alias Rinku, after working as electrician,
returned to his house at 10.30 p.m. After
sometime, the revisionist was informed that
his son became unconscious. There were
mark of injuries on his neck. He was taken
to the hospital for treatment where the
doctor declared him brought dead. His
postmortem was done through police of
Police Station- Kotwali Orai. His son's
wife, Smt. Vijay Lakshmi @ Bulbul, used
to quarrel with him and insult him for
sending half of his income to her
matrimonial home. On the date of the
incident, opposite party no. 2, Smt. Vijay
Lakshmi @ Bulbul had quarrelled and
insulted his son for sending half of his
income to her matrimonial home. Due to
the insult suffered by him, his son
committed
suicide
by
hanging.
On
05.09.2022
and
24.09.2022,
the
revisionist/applicant submitted application
to Police Station- Kotwali Orai and higher
police authorities for registration of first
information report but no F.I.R. was
registered. The revisionist/applicant has
submitted copy of Misc. Case No. 149 of
2022
dated
19.10.2022
(Smt.
Vijay
Lakshmi @ Bulbul and Another Vs. Bharat
Singh Kushwaha) filed u/s 372 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925. He has also
filed his son's Gopal Krishna alias Rinku
postmortem
report
dated
05.09.2022,
application dated 15.12.2022 sent to S.P.,
Jalaun for registration of F.I.R., newspaper
cutting regarding death of his son by
hanging.

5. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the revisionist that the learned
Magistrate passed the impugned illegal
order without appreciation of evidence and
without application of his mind. It has next
been submitted that the learned Magistrate
passed the impugned order on the basis of
report sent by police station without
considering the averments made in the
application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It has also
been submitted that the learned Magistrate
passed the impugned order presuming that
the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed
as a counterblast to the Misc. Case No. 149
of 2022 (Smt. Vijay Lakshmi @ Bulbul and
Another Vs. Bharat Singh Kushwaha) filed
u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
by opposite party no. 2. It has also been
submitted that from the basis of averments
made in the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
and the documents filed in support thereof,
prima facie, case u/s 306 and 201 I.P.C.
was made out against opposite party no. 2
but
by
exceeding
his
jurisdiction,
Magistrate
illegally
rejected
the
application. He has prayed for quashing the
impugned
order
and
directing
the
Magistrate to pass a fresh order on his
application.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the
learned Magistrate after considering the
evidence on record and the provisions of
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the law has rightly passed the impugned
order. It has next been submitted that there
is no merit in the revision and it may be
rejected. It has also been submitted that
after the death of his first wife, the
revisionist married another woman, Mithila
Devi, who started quarrelling with husband
of opposite party no. 2 over trivial matters.
When her husband could not bear the
family
dispute,
he
decided
to
stay
separately from his father/revisionist. In the
meanwhile, the husband of opposite party
no. 2 underwent depression due to quarrel
with his father and consequently committed
suicide by hanging himself on 04.09.2022.
Last rites were performed by family
members. The opposite party no. 2 moved
an application on 15.10.2022 to the Branch
Manager, IDBI Bank, Branch- Jalaun at
Orai, requesting not to permit anyone to
withdraw amount from the account no.
1483102000002219
of
her
deceased
husband except with the permission of the
court. The opposite party no. 2 filed a Misc.
Case No. 149 of 2022 (Smt. Vijay Lakshmi
@ Bulbul and Another Vs. Bharat Singh
Kushwaha) filed u/s 372 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 for issuance of
succession certificate to her and her minor
son, Rishabh. When the revisionist came to
know about the aforesaid misc. case, he
threatened her with dire consequences. To
pressurize her, the revisionist moved an
application dated 15.12.2022 before S.P.,
Jalaun at Orai followed by application u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 17.01.2023 before the
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at
Orai arraigning opposite party no. 2 as
accused. On the direction of the Magistrate,
an enquiry was conducted and police report
dated 22.01.2023 was submitted before him
to the effect that false and fictitious
allegations were levelled by the revisionist
against opposite party no. 2. Meanwhile on
28.02.2023,
the
revisionist
withdrew
Rs.4,00,000/- from the account of the
husband of opposite party no. 2. The
opposite party no. 2 has filed true copy of
the application dated 15.10.2022 given to
the Branch Manager and statement of
account of her husband's account as
Annexure Nos. C.A.1 and C.A.2 to her
counter affidavit. In support of his
arguments, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 has relied on the judgement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 781 of 2012, Mrs. Priyanka
Srivastava and Another Vs. State of U.P.
and Others, 2015 (6) SCC 287.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
and learned A.G.A. for the State have been
heard. Perused the entire trial court record
and record of the revision.

8. In the case of Mrs. Priyanka
Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court has given following directions to the
Magistrate for passing order u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.
for
registration
of
a
first
information report to the S.O. of the
concerned police station :-

29.At this stage it is seemly to
state that power under Section 156(3)
warrants application of judicial mind. A
court of law is involved. It is not the police
taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of
the Code. A litigant at his own whim
cannot invoke the authority of the
Magistrate. A principled and really grieved
citizen with clean hands must have free
access to invoke the said power. It protects
the citizens but when pervert litigations
takes this route to harass their fellow
citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle
and curb the same.

30.In our considered opinion, a
stage has come in this country where
2 All. Bharat Singh Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
37
Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to
be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by
the applicant who seeks the invocation of
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That
apart, in an appropriate case, the learned
Magistrate would be well advised to verify
the truth and also can verify the veracity
of the allegations. This affidavit can make
the applicant more responsible. We are
compelled to say so as such kind of
applications are being filed in a routine
manner without taking any responsibility
whatsoever only to harass certain persons.
That apart, it becomes more disturbing
and alarming when one tries to pick up
people who are passing orders under a
statutory
provision
which
can
be
challenged under the framework of the
said Act or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. But it cannot be
done to take undue advantage in a
criminal
court
as
if
somebody
is
determined to settle the scores.

31.We have already indicated
that there has to be prior applications
under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while
filing a petition under Section 156(3).
Both the aspects should be clearly spelt
out in the application and necessary
documents to that effect shall be filed. The
warrant for giving a direction that an
application under Section 156(3) be
supported by an affidavit is so that the
person making the application should be
conscious and also endeavour to see that
no false affidavit is made. It is because
once an affidavit is found to be false, he
will
be
liable
for
prosecution
in
accordance with law. This will deter him
to casually invoke the authority of the
Magistrate under Section 156(3). That
apart, we have already stated that the
veracity of the same can also be verified
by the learned Magistrate, regard being
had to the nature of allegations of the
case. We are compelled to say so as a
number of cases pertaining to fiscal
sphere,
matrimonial
dispute/family
disputes, commercial offences, medical
negligence cases, corruption cases and the
cases
where
there
is
abnormal
delay/laches
in
initiating
criminal
prosecution, as are illustrated inLalita
Kumari[(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the
learned Magistrate would also be aware of
the delay in lodging of the FIR.

9. In the judgement propounded by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. &
Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 cited by the
revisionist relates to registration of first
information report u/s 154 (1) Cr.P.C. on
the application of the informant by the S.O.
In the aforesaid case of Lalita Kumari
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid
down
law
for
registration
of
first
information report by the S.O. of concerned
police station. In this case, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has not given directions to the
Magistrate regarding passing of the order
on the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed the
desirability
of
registration
of
first
information report u/s 154 (1) Cr.P.C. by
the S.O. on the application of the
informant. The Hon'ble Apex Court had
issued following guidelines for registration
of first information report u/s 154 (1)
Cr.P.C. by the S.O. concerned :-

49.Consequently, the condition
that is sine qua non for recording an FIR
under Section 154 of the Code is that
there must be information and that
information must disclose a cognizable
offence. If any information disclosing a
cognizable offence is led before an officer
in charge of the police station satisfying
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the requirement of Section 154(1), the said
police officer has no other option except to
enter the substance thereof in the
prescribed form, that is to say, to register a
case on the basis of such information. The
provision of Section 154 of the Code is
mandatory and the officer concerned is
duty-bound to register the case on the
basis
of
information
disclosing
a
cognizable offence. Thus, the plain words
of Section 154(1) of the Code have to be
given their literal meaning.

53.Investigation of offences and
prosecution of offenders are the duties of
the State. For "cognizable offences", a
duty has been cast upon the police to
register FIR and to conduct investigation
except as otherwise permitted specifically
under Section 157 of the Code. If a
discretion, option or latitude is allowed to
the police in the matter of registration of
FIRs, it can have serious consequences on
the public order situation and can also
adversely affect the rights of the victims
including violating their fundamental
right to equality.

10. Admittedly, Gopal Krishna alias
Rinku, son of revisionist was found dead
on 04.09.2022 by hanging in his house. In
his postmortem report dated 05.09.2022,
following antemortem injuries were found
on his person :-

(1) Ligature mark present below
the chin above the thyroid cartilage of size
31 x 1.5 cm with gap of 5 cm right side of
neck.

(2) Ligature mark 4 cm below the
right ear and 6 cm below the chin and 7 cm
below the left ear.

(3) On dissection of ligature
mark, hyoid bone was found intact.

(4) Total circumference of nose
26 cm.

(5) No other injury seen all over
the body.

The
cause
of
death
was
mentioned as shock and asphyxia due to
continuous hanging.

11. From the consideration of the
averments made by the parties and the
documents filed in support thereof, it
appears that after the death of her husband,
opposite party no. 2 had submitted an
application dated 15.10.2022 to the Bank
Manager requesting him not to make
payment of the deposits to the revisionist
who was made nominee of the bank
account. The opposite party no. 2 had filed
Misc. Case No. 149 of 2022 (Smt. Vijay
Lakshmi @ Bulbul and Another Vs. Bharat
Singh Kushwaha) filed u/s 372 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925 on 19.10.2022
in the civil court for issuance of succession
certificate regarding the aforesaid bank
deposit in favour of opposite party no. 2
and her minor son. Only after the opposite
party no. 2 had filed aforesaid application
regarding the bank deposits of her husband,
in order to pressurize her, the revisionist
submitted application to S.P., Jalaun on
15.12.2022 and filed application u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. on 17.01.2023 against her. In the
postmortem report of deceased, apart from
the aforesaid ligature marks, no bodily
injuries were found on his person. The
revisionist has not filed any documentary
evidence
regarding
his
averment
of
harassment and insult done by opposite
party no. 2 to her husband due to which he
committed suicide.

12. Averment has been made on
behalf of opposite party no. 2 that after the
death of her husband, his last rites were
performed by the family members of the
revisionist. In the impugned order, the
learned
Magistrate
has
taken
into
2 All. Vidya Sagar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
39
consideration the fact that the revisionist
has not given any documentary evidence in
support of alleged harassment of his son by
her wife. It has also mentioned that no
suicide note was found which may
corroborate
the
averment
regarding
abetment of suicide by the wife of the
deceased. The Magistrate has also taken
into consideration the fact that a case was
filed by the wife of the deceased against the
revisionist/applicant, namely, Misc. Case
No. 149 of 2022 (Smt. Vijay Lakshmi @
Bulbul and Another Vs. Bharat Singh
Kushwaha) filed u/s 372 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, for issuance of
succession certificate in favour of opposite
party no. 2 and her son regarding the bank
deposit of the deceased.

13. The revisionist has not mentioned
that he had filed affidavit in support of
application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. nor he has
filed certified copy of any such affidavit as
mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case
of
Mrs.
Priyanka
Srivastava
(supra).

14. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and prima facie
evidence on record in the light of the law
propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
for passing order by Magistrate on
application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Court is
of the considered opinion that no illegality,
irregularity or impropriety has been found
in the impugned order passed by the
learned Magistrate.

15. There is no merit in the criminal
revision and the same is liable to be
dismissed.

16.

The
criminal
revision
is
dismissed, accordingly.

17. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial court for necessary
action.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 39
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3588 of 2017

Vidya Sagar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Lok Nath Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Km. Nisha Singh, Sri Prem Chandra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 379 & 427 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973
-
Section 245(2)
-
Against rejection of discharge application
-
Accused/applicant
contended
that
complainant's
earlier
application
u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R. and
investigation,
dismissed,
this
fact
concealed while filing present complaint -
Revisionist moved application u/s 245(2)
Cr.P.C. raising several factual grounds, not
duly considered by trial court while
dismissing same - It is urged that
revisionist and co-accused are on enimical
terms, leaving no occasion for joint
commission of theft or mischief as alleged
- Held, admitted fact that criminal revision
filed
against
summoning
order
was
dismissed,
thereafter
accused
moved
application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. seeking
discharge at pre-trial stage - Revisionist is
not yet on bail - No proceedings taken
between summoning order and discharge
application - Since summoning order
affirmed in criminal revision on same
facts, discharge application u/s 245(2)