# Dhanesh Chandra Sharma & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 419
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-02
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2600 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhanesh-chandra-sharma-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46890
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156 (3) - at the
pre-cognizance stage - when only a
direction
has
been
issued
by
the
Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
to investigate - prospective accused has
no locus standi to challenge a direction for
investigation of a cognizable case before
cognizance or the issuance of process -
order by the Magistrate directing a police
officer to investigate a cognizable case is
an
incidental
step
in
the
aid
of
investigation and trial and is interlocutory
in nature, similar to orders granting bail,
calling
for
records,
issuing
search
warrants, summoning witnesses and other
like matters which do not impinge upon a
valuable right of a prospective accused -
not amenable to a challenge in a criminal
revision in view of the bar contained
under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.(Para -10)

An order passed upon an application filed by the
opposite party no. 2 under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. -application was allowed by the Judicial
Magistrate, with a direction for registration of an
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
F.I.R. and investigation of the case - Revisional
court has rejected the revision as being not
maintainable. (Para -3,4)

HELD: - An order of the Magistrate made in
exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C
directing the police to register and investigate is
not open to revision at the instance of a person
against whom neither cognizance has been
taken nor any process issued. An order made
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing a police
officer to investigate a cognizable case is an
interlocutory order and the remedy of revision
against such order is barred under Section 397
(2) Cr.P.C.(Para - 9)

Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

3 All. Dhanesh Chandra Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
419

"Putting the criminal law into
motion is not a matter of course. To settle
the scores between the parties which are
more in the nature of a civil dispute, the
parties cannot be permitted to put the
criminal law into motion and Courts
cannot be a mere spectator to it. Before a
Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence
under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act,
making a person vicariously liable has to
ensure strict compliance of the statutory
requirements. The Superior Courts should
maintain purity in the administration of
Justice and should not allow abuse of the
process of the Court. The High Court ought
to have quashed the complaint against the
appellant which is nothing but a pure abuse
of process of law."

44. In view of the above, this court is
satisfied that as the complaint has not been
filed against the company; as the company
has not been made a party accused; no
vicarious liability can be imposed on the
accused applicant. The complaint cannot
proceed against the applicant in his
personal capacity as the cheque was issued
by the company and the applicant had
signed the cheque as its authorized
signatory. Any offence, even prima facie, is
not made out against the applicant under
Section 138 N.I. Act read with Section 141
of the Act.

45. The proceedings of the complaint
case and the orders under challenge amount
to abuse of the process of the Court and
deserve to be quashed to secure the ends of
justice.

46. This section 482 Cr.P.C. petition
is allowed. The orders under challenge and
the proceedings of Complaint Case No.
1153 of 2015 (Manoj Kumar vs Sanjay
Singh) as aforesaid are hereby quashed.

47. No orders as to costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A419
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2600 of 2021

Dhanesh Chandra Sharma & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Surjit Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156 (3) - at the
pre-cognizance stage - when only a
direction
has
been
issued
by
the
Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
to investigate - prospective accused has
no locus standi to challenge a direction for
investigation of a cognizable case before
cognizance or the issuance of process -
order by the Magistrate directing a police
officer to investigate a cognizable case is
an
incidental
step
in
the
aid
of
investigation and trial and is interlocutory
in nature, similar to orders granting bail,
calling
for
records,
issuing
search
warrants, summoning witnesses and other
like matters which do not impinge upon a
valuable right of a prospective accused -
not amenable to a challenge in a criminal
revision in view of the bar contained
under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.(Para -10)

An order passed upon an application filed by the
opposite party no. 2 under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. -application was allowed by the Judicial
Magistrate, with a direction for registration of an
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
F.I.R. and investigation of the case - Revisional
court has rejected the revision as being not
maintainable. (Para -3,4)

HELD: - An order of the Magistrate made in
exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C
directing the police to register and investigate is
not open to revision at the instance of a person
against whom neither cognizance has been
taken nor any process issued. An order made
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing a police
officer to investigate a cognizable case is an
interlocutory order and the remedy of revision
against such order is barred under Section 397
(2) Cr.P.C.(Para - 9)

Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Father Thomas Vs St.of U.P. & ors. , 2011
(72) ACC 564

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Surjit Kumar, learned
counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj
Saxena, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the
State-opposite party.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a
prayer to set aside the order dated 15.12.2020
passed by the District and Session Judge,
Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 208 of
2020 (Dhanesh Chandra Sharma and another
Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby the
revision has been rejected as being not
maintainable.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are
that an order dated 18.11.2020 was passed
upon an application filed by the opposite
party no. 2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
whereby the said application was allowed by
the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura with a
direction for registration of an F.I.R. and
investigation of the case.

4. The revisional court relying upon a
decision of a Full Bench of this Court in
Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and
others1, has rejected the revision as being not
maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
has sought to assail the aforesaid order by
trying
to
contend
that
the
criminal
proceedings have been initiated maliciously
by falsely implicating the applicants and
solely for the purpose to harass the
applicants.

6. Learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the
State opposite party supports the order passed
by the Session Judge, Mathura in terms of
which the revision filed by the applicants has
been rejected as being not maintainable. To
support his contention, he has relied upon the
judgment of the Full Bench in the case of
Father Thomas (supra) which was taken
note by the revisional court.

7. The question as to whether the
order of the Magistrate made in exercise of
powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C
directing the police to register and
investigate is open to revision at the
instance of a person against whom neither
cognizance has been taken nor any process
issued was subject matter of consideration
before
the
Full
Bench
wherein
the
following questions had been referred.

"A. Whether the order of the
Magistrate made in exercise of powers
under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal
Procedure directing the police to register
and investigate is open to revision at the
instance of a person against whom neither
3 All. Dhanesh Chandra Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
421
cognizance has been taken nor any process
issued?

B. Whether an order made under
Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure
is an interlocutory order and remedy of
revision against such order is barred under
Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

C. Whether the view expressed
by a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Ajay Malviya v. State of U.P and
Ors. reported in 2000(41) ACC 435 that as
an order made under Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is amenable to
revision, no writ petition for quashing an
F.I.R registered on the basis of the order
will be maintainable, is correct?"

8. The Full Bench after considering
the matter at length expressed is opinion on
the three questions which had been referred
to in the following manner :-

"A. The order of the Magistrate
made in exercise of powers under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C directing the police to register
and investigate is not open to revision at the
instance of a person against whom neither
cognizance has been taken nor any process
issued.

B. An order made under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and
remedy of revision against such order is
barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

C. The view expressed by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ajay Malviya Vs. State of U.P and others
reported in 2000(41) ACC 435 that as an
order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure is amenable to
revision, and no writ petition for quashing an
F.I.R registered on the basis of the order will
be maintainable, is not correct."

9. In view of the aforesaid opinion
expressed by the Full Bench, an order of the
Magistrate made in exercise of powers under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C directing the police to
register and investigate is not open to revision
at the instance of a person against whom
neither cognizance has been taken nor any
process issued. It has been further held that an
order made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
directing a police officer to investigate a
cognizable case is an interlocutory order and
the remedy of revision against such order is
barred under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C.

10. It may therefore be reiterated that at
the pre-cognizance stage when only a
direction has been issued by the Magistrate
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to investigate a
prospective accused has no locus standi to
challenge a direction for investigation of a
cognizable case before cognizance or the
issuance of process. It may also be taken note
of that the order by the Magistrate directing a
police officer to investigate a cognizable case
is an incidental step in the aid of investigation
and trial and is interlocutory in nature, similar
to orders granting bail, calling for records,
issuing
search
warrants,
summoning
witnesses and other like matters which do not
impinge upon a valuable right of a
prospective accused and is, hence, not
amenable to a challenge in a criminal revision
in view of the bar contained under Section
397(2) Cr.P.C.

11. Counsel for the applicants has not
been able to dispute the aforesaid legal
position. He submits that the present
application
may
be
dismissed
as
withdrawn.

12. Learned A.G.A.-I appearing for
the State-opposite party has no objection to
the prayer so made.
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13.

The
application
stands
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)03ILR A422
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2695 of 2021

Smt. Manju & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Amit Daga

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 & Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A, 304-B &
3⁄4 D.P. Act,1961-discharge applicationrejection-deceased
committed
suicidethough the applicants are sister-in-law
and brother-in-law of the deceased but
evidence regarding the presence of the
accused at the time of incident cannot be
evaluated at the stage of framing charge-
accused can be discharged only when the
charge is groundless. (Para 1 to 22)

B. It is well settled that at the stage of
charge the court is not required to
consider pros and cons of the case.
Marshalling and appreciation of evidence
is not in the domain of the court at that
point of time. What is required from the
court is to sift and weigh the materials for
the limited purpose whether or not a
prima facie case for framing a charge
against the accused has been made out.
(Para 5 to 21)

The Application is rejected. (E-5)
List of Cases cited: -

1. K. Subba Rao & ors. Vs St. of Telangana,
(2018) 14 SC 452

2. Kans Raj Vs St. of Punj., (2000) 5 SCC 207

3. St. of Bih. Vs Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39

4. W.B. Vs Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1980) AIR SC 52

5. St. of Bih. Vs Ramesh Singh, (1977) AIR SC
2018

6. Palwinder Singh Vs Balvinder Singh, (2009)
AIR SC 887

7. St. Of Ori. Vs Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1
SCC 568

8. Sanghi Bros. (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjay
Chaudhary (2009) AIR SC 9

9. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj. (1960) AIR SC 866

10. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (Cr.)
426

11. Vijayan Vs St. of Ker. & anr. (2010) 2 SCC
398

12. M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs C.B.I., Bengaluru,
(2020) 1 Supreme 169

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned
counsel for the applicants and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed against the orders dated
20.01.2020 and 06.02.2020 passed by
learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge (F.T.C.), constituted under the 14th
Financial Commission, Jhansi in Sessions
Trial No. 281 of 2019, (State of U.P. Vs.
Arvind Kushwaha and others), under
Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4