# Madan Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 860
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2226 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/madan-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45318
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections 397/401 &
Setion
156(3),203-complaint
dismissed-Magistrate is
empowered
either for dismissal of the complaint
or summoning of accused persons on
the basis of evidence collected in the
inquiry, by way of application of
judicial
mind-in
the
instant
case
dismissal of complaint is well within
jurisdiction of the Magistrate-Hence,
dismissed.(Para 6 to 10)

Criminal Revision dismissed.(E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)02ILR A860

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2226 of 2019

Madan Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Kamal Dev Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections 397/401 &
Setion
156(3),203-complaint
dismissed-Magistrate is
empowered
either for dismissal of the complaint
or summoning of accused persons on
the basis of evidence collected in the
inquiry, by way of application of
judicial
mind-in
the
instant
case
dismissal of complaint is well within
jurisdiction of the Magistrate-Hence,
dismissed.(Para 6 to 10)

Criminal Revision dismissed.(E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Ram Babu Gupta Vs. St. Of U.P. & Ors,
(2001) 43 ACC 50

2. Sukhwasi Vs. St. Of U.P.,(2007) 59 ACC 739

3. Suresh Chandra Jain Vs. St. Of M.P. &
Anr,(2001) 42 ACC 459

4. Aleque Padamsee & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors,
(2007) 6 SC 171

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J).)

1. As per office report, opposite
parties were served with notice, but no
counter affidavit got filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for
revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for
State.

3. This criminal revision under
Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
Madan Singh with a prayer for setting
aside impugned order dated 11.03.2019,
passed
by
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
8,
Farrukhabad, in Complaint Case No. 1756
of 2019 (Madan Singh Versus Jagdish and
others), under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and
thereby direction to court concerned for
reconsidering at the point of summoning.

4. Learned counsel for revisionist
argued that in application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved for registration
and investigation of case. It was treated as
complaint,
wherein
statements
under
Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were got
recorded.
Thereafter,
complaint
was
dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.,
whereas statements were fully intact and
cognizable offence was made out. The
complainant
Madan
Singh
came
in
interaction with Jagdish, father-in-law of
his nephew Rohit, who was there to attend
his first marriage anniversary ceremony,
on 22.11.2016, along with his relative Raja
Ram and his daughter-in-law Kiran. They
pursued for marriage of Mohit with
Sheetal.
Under
their
persuasion,
complainant
along
with
his
family
members visited home of accused persons
at village Kankapur on 13.12.2016, but
they were pressurized for seeing Km.
Sheetal in that very night and after it
proposal was refused. But a threat of
coercion was exercised, whereupon a
2 All. Madan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
861
golden chain worth Rs.15,000/- with
Sarees and other articles along with sweets
worth Rs.5,000/- was given. Thereafter
complainant could return back at 12 O'
Clock in the night. On 05.04.2017,
complainant along with Jagdish went to
house of accused persons no. 5 to 6, at
about 2 P.M. and asked for return of above
articles, but he was badly abused. He tried
to get the case lodged at police station and
after its denial, this complaint was filed.
Complainant was examined under Section
200 Cr.P.C. wherein there was complete
reiteration of contention of complaint. It
was corroborated by testimony recorded
under Section 202 Cr.P.C., but even after
sufficient evidence, constituting offence
punishable,
the
impugned
order
of
dismissal of complaint was passed. This
was failure to appreciate facts and law
placed on record, thereby mis-exercise of
jurisdiction
vested
in
the
court
of
Magistrate as well as apparent error on the
face of record. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed
the
application
with
this
contention that it was highly improbable.
Neither boy, for whom bride was selected,
was examined nor there is any mark of
specification regarding articles given,
whereas a case has already been registered
against complainant, wherein demand of
dowry and refusal of marriage was
complained. The order was well within
jurisdiction of Magistrate. Hence, this
revision be dismissed.

6. From the very perusal of
impugned order, it is apparent that
Magistrate
has
rejected
the
claim
regarding registration of case crime
number in an application moved under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Division Bench of
this Court in Ram Babu Gupta vs. State
of U.P. and Ors.; 2001 (43) A.C.C. 50,
and Sukhwasi Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh; 2007 (59) A.C.C. 739 and apex
court in Suresh Chandra Jain Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh and another; 2001
(42) A.C.C. 459 and Aleque Padamsee
and others Vs. Union of India and
others; (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases
171, has propounded that Magistrate is not
bound to direct for registration and
investigation of each and every case,
wherein application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. has been moved. Rather, it may
take cognizance by itself and proceed as a
complaint case. Hence, this registration of
complaint case and thereby proceeding by
Magistrate itself over an application
moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
well within jurisdiction of Magistrate.

7. Passing order for summoning
under Section 204 Cr.P.C. or dismissing
complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., on
the basis of evidence collected in the
inquiry, made by Magistrate, by way of
application of judicial mind, is jurisdiction
vested in Magistrate. He may either
summon under Section 204 Cr.P.C., in
cases where prima facie offence are made
out, or may dismiss complaint under
Section 203 Cr.P.C., wherein situation is
otherwise.
Hence,
Magistrate
is
empowered either for dismissal of the
complaint or summoning of accused
persons.
Hence,
impugned
order
of
dismissal of complaint is well within
jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

8. Regarding appreciation of fact,
this Court, under exercise of revision
jurisdiction is not to analyze the fact. But
apparently
what
is
clear,
that
this
complainant made entire sequence of fact,
narrated by him, but neither marriage was
ever solemnized nor he was father of the
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
groom nor the groom had been examined
nor the specific mark of identification is
there on the articles, which was ought to
be given nor single iota was said either in
the complaint or in the statement recorded
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. regarding
criminal case, which was lodged against
complainant and his family members, for
this proposed marriage. It itself shows that
it was an attempt to counter the previously
instituted case against complainant.

9. A bride is not a physical
commodity. It could never be said that one
is having option to see her and then select
or reject her for marriage. Rather, bride
itself
is
with
fundamental
rights,
guaranteed
under
Part
III
of
the
Constitution of India, and she herself is
having all rights of life and liberty. It can
never be permitted to male chauvinism to
see photograph and then select or reject for
marriage, as has been said by complainant.
What may be a criteria for selecting a girl
for marriage or for rejecting a girl for
marriage? that too not by a person with
whom marriage is going to be performed,
rather his father or uncle, is nothing more
than a case of male chauvinism. Hence, on
the evidence collected by Magistrate, this
impugned
order
was
well
within
jurisdiction of Magistrate having no
illegality or irregularity.

10. Accordingly, the revision merits
its dismissal. The revision is dismissed as
such.
----------
(2020)02ILR A862

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
Criminal Revision No. 2490 of 2018

Aftab Alam ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Lakshmi Kant Trigunait, Sri Dev Kant
Trigunait

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Mohammad Maseeh, Sri Wahaj
Ahmad Siddiqui

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections
397/401
&
Protection of Woman from Domestic
Violence Act,2005-Section 23-challenge
to-interim maintenance of Rs. 3000/-was
awarded-husband challenged this order
before High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. ,side by
side same was challenged by Appellate
court-which too was dismissed-again
husband
filed
criminal
revision-this
shows litigating attitude of husband, who
had filed all these proceeding, but not
ready to make payment to his wife-order
of lower courts is confirmed by this court
directing
husband
to
pay
maintenance.Hence, dismissed.
 (Para 6 to 8)

Criminal Revision dismissed.(E-6)

The revision is dismissed.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J).)

1. This criminal revision under
Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
by Aftab Alam against State of U.P. and
Another, with a prayer for setting aside
impugned order of an appellate Court
Additional District Judge F.T.C., Court
No. 20, Allahabad, passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 184/2017, Aftab Alam vs.
State of U.P. and another, dated 13.7.2018,
whereby appeal was dismissed and order