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

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 449
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53212
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Criminal revision under Sections
397 read with Section 401 CrPC-Complaint
under Section 156(3) - Rejection of
application for direction to register FIR -
Revision
against
-
Allegation
that
deceased (brother of revisionist) was
murdered by relatives over demand of
share in housing scheme amount and
property - Police report silent on key
motive
aspect
-
Magistrate
rejected
application solely relying on police report
- Held, where application prima facie
discloses cognizable offence, court must
direct FIR without preliminary inquiry -
Contents of application disclosed motive,
threats, and mode of commission of
offence - Rejection by court without
proper reasoning illegal - Second FIR not
barred
when
version,
informant
and
accused are different - Revision allowed -
Magistrate
directed
to
reconsider
application afresh. (Paras 29 to 32, 36, 37,
38, and 40)

HELD:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitution
Bench judgement rendered in the case of Lalita
Kumari (Supra) had held that the registration of
F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C., if
the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no inquiry is permissible
in such a situation. It has further been held that
if the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity
for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain as to whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not... (Para
29)

This Court finds that the Constitution Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement
rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra)
had created two categories; firstly where the
contents of the information disclose commission
of the cognizable offence and secondly where
the contents, in categorical terms, do not
disclose commission of the cognizable offence
but indicates the necessity for an inquiry. In the
first scenario, there is no necessity for any
preliminary inquiry and registration of the F.I.R.
is must but in second scenario, the direction for
preliminary inquiry by the police can be given.
(Para 30)

Now looking into the facts of the present case, it
is quite apparent that the contents of the
application, filed by the revisionist under Section
156
(3)
Cr.P.C.,
in
unequivocal
terms
demonstrate the commission of the cognizable
offence therefore, in view of the judgement
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Lalita Kumari (Supra), there was no
necessity for the court to call for a police report.
In the matter of the revisionist, though in the
police report, it had been St.d that the
allegations levelled, in his application filed under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., have not been found
proved but at the same time, the motive to
commit crime with the Opposite Party No. 3 has
not been ruled out. (Para 31)

In the given facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the view that the learned
Special
Judge
(Dacoity
Affected
Area
Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda ought not
to have accepted the police report as a gospel
truth because the contents of the application
filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., disclose
commission of a cognizable offence therefore,
the court, while rejecting the application filed by
the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., had
committed manifest error of law. (Para 32)

The Division Bench of this Court in its
judgement dated 26.02.2020 rendered in the
case of Deokali (Supra) had held that where,
the different version of the incident is reported
by a different complainant giving a different set
of accused, then the said version would have to
be investigated and the said version cannot be
termed as second First Information Report of
the same offence therefore, on the basis of the
second version, second F.I.R. has to be lodged
and investigated and further police report is to
be filed before the competent court ...(Para 37)

From the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and by the Division Bench of this
Co

## Text

_Characters 0–39,875 of 80,064. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39875 for what follows._

3 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
449
which as quoted below, are
very pertinent :
"We believe that in this
country indecent assaults are often
magnified into attempts at rape,
and even more often into rape
itself; and we think that conviction
of an attempt at rape ought not to
be arrived at unless the Court be
satisfied that the conduct of the
accused indicated a determination
to gratify his passions at all events
and in spite of all resistance."

26. After giving a thoughtful
consideration and meticulous examination
of the facts of the case, this court is of the
considered opinion that mere fact that
according to prosecution version two
accused Pawan and Akash grabbed the
breasts of the victim and one of them
namely Akash broke the string of her
pyjama and tried to drag her beneath the
culvert
and
in
the
meanwhile
on
interference of passersby/witnesses the
accused persons fled away from the spot
leaving the victim behind, is not sufficient
to hold that a case of Section 376, 511 IPC
or Section 376 IPC readwith Section 18 of
POCSO Act has been made out against the
accused persons.

27. On facts of the case a prima
facie charge attempt to rape is not made out
against the accused Pawan and Akash and
instead they are liable to be summoned for
minor charge of Section 354(b) IPC i.e.
assault or abuse a woman with intent to
disrobing or compelling her to be naked
and Section 9 of POCSO Act provides
punishment for aggravated sexual assault
on a child victim wherein Section 9 (m)
provides that whoever commits sexual
assault on a child below twelve years is
said to have commit aggravated sexual
assault. Section 10 provides punishment
with imprisonment upto seven years winch
shall not be less than five years and shall be
liable to fine.

28. Section 10 of POCSO Act
provides that whoever, commits aggravated
sexual assault shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which shall not be less than five years
but which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

29. With foregoing discussion, this
court finds that the finding of the learned
court below with regard to offence of
attempt to rape in respect of revisionist
Pawan and Akash in the impugned
summoning order is not sustainable and
instead they are liable to be summoned for
minor offence under Sections 354(b) IPC
readwith Section 9/10 of POCSO Act. The
impugned
summoning
order
stands
modified accordingly. The learned court
below is directed to issue fresh summoning
order in respect of the revisionists Pawan
and Akash, under modified sections.

30. . The revision is partly allowed
in the manner.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 449
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2024

Rajendra Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, Sri Srijan Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Criminal revision under Sections
397 read with Section 401 CrPC-Complaint
under Section 156(3) - Rejection of
application for direction to register FIR -
Revision
against
-
Allegation
that
deceased (brother of revisionist) was
murdered by relatives over demand of
share in housing scheme amount and
property - Police report silent on key
motive
aspect
-
Magistrate
rejected
application solely relying on police report
- Held, where application prima facie
discloses cognizable offence, court must
direct FIR without preliminary inquiry -
Contents of application disclosed motive,
threats, and mode of commission of
offence - Rejection by court without
proper reasoning illegal - Second FIR not
barred
when
version,
informant
and
accused are different - Revision allowed -
Magistrate
directed
to
reconsider
application afresh. (Paras 29 to 32, 36, 37,
38, and 40)

HELD:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitution
Bench judgement rendered in the case of Lalita
Kumari (Supra) had held that the registration of
F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C., if
the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no inquiry is permissible
in such a situation. It has further been held that
if the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity
for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain as to whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not... (Para
29)

This Court finds that the Constitution Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement
rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra)
had created two categories; firstly where the
contents of the information disclose commission
of the cognizable offence and secondly where
the contents, in categorical terms, do not
disclose commission of the cognizable offence
but indicates the necessity for an inquiry. In the
first scenario, there is no necessity for any
preliminary inquiry and registration of the F.I.R.
is must but in second scenario, the direction for
preliminary inquiry by the police can be given.
(Para 30)

Now looking into the facts of the present case, it
is quite apparent that the contents of the
application, filed by the revisionist under Section
156
(3)
Cr.P.C.,
in
unequivocal
terms
demonstrate the commission of the cognizable
offence therefore, in view of the judgement
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Lalita Kumari (Supra), there was no
necessity for the court to call for a police report.
In the matter of the revisionist, though in the
police report, it had been St.d that the
allegations levelled, in his application filed under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., have not been found
proved but at the same time, the motive to
commit crime with the Opposite Party No. 3 has
not been ruled out. (Para 31)

In the given facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the view that the learned
Special
Judge
(Dacoity
Affected
Area
Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda ought not
to have accepted the police report as a gospel
truth because the contents of the application
filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., disclose
commission of a cognizable offence therefore,
the court, while rejecting the application filed by
the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., had
committed manifest error of law. (Para 32)

The Division Bench of this Court in its
judgement dated 26.02.2020 rendered in the
case of Deokali (Supra) had held that where,
the different version of the incident is reported
by a different complainant giving a different set
of accused, then the said version would have to
be investigated and the said version cannot be
termed as second First Information Report of
the same offence therefore, on the basis of the
second version, second F.I.R. has to be lodged
and investigated and further police report is to
be filed before the competent court ...(Para 37)

From the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and by the Division Bench of this
Court, it had already been crystallized that
where, the different version of the incident is
3 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
451
reported by a different complainant giving a
different set of accused, then the second First
Information Report for the same incident is
permissible under law

Revision Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh
& ors. 2014 (2) SCC 1

2. Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash & ors. (2004) 13
SCC 292

3. Surender Kaushik & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2013) 5 SCC 148

4. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24812 of 2019
(Deokali Vs St. of U.P. & ors.)

5. T.T. Antony Vs St. of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC
181

6. Awadesh Kumar Jha Vs St. of Bihar, (2016) 3
SCC 8

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Srijan Pandey and Sri
Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsels
appearing for the revisionist, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
appearing for the State and Sri I.K.
Chaturvedi,
learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned
counsel appearing for Opposite Parties No.
2 to 4.

2. The instant criminal revision has
been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read
with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging
therein, the order dated 11.03.2024 passed
by the learned Special Judge (Dacoity
Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions
Judge, Banda in Criminal Misc. Case No.
71 of 2024 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Vinod
Singh and Others) whereby, the application
filed by the revisionist, under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the police to
register the First Information Report, had
been rejected.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are
that brother of the revisionist i.e. Virendra
Singh and his wife were found dead in their
house in the morning of 07.11.2023. The
revisionist informed the police of the Police
Station Pailani, District Banda that his
sister, Krishna Devi, his cousin, Vinod
Singh
and
one
Sanjay
Singh
have
administered poison to his brother and wife
of his brother, which had resulted into their
death. The police did not register the First
Information Report, however the police
sent the dead-bodies for post-mortem. In
the post-mortem report, it is mentioned that
the cause of death could not be ascertained
and therefore viscera had been preserved.

4. Since the police did not register
the First Information Report, the revisionist
went to the police station for lodging the
F.I.R. but he was ousted from the police
station by using force. Thereafter, the
revisionist
appeared
before
the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Banda
on
21.12.2023 and he also sent his application
for lodging F.I.R. to the Superintendent of
Police, Banda through registered post on
22.12.2023.

5. Since, in-spite of the aforesaid
efforts made by the revisionist, the police
did not register F.I.R., he filed an
application on 26.02.2024 in the court of
learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected
Area
Act)/Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Banda.
In
the
said
application,
the
revisionist had stated that his brother,
Virendra Singh was sanctioned a house
under Pradhan Mantri Housing Scheme and
an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was credited in
his account. The sister of the revisionist i.e.
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Krishna Devi, cousin of the revisionist i.e.
Vinod Singh and Pradhan Pratinidhi,
Sanjay Singh were pressurizing Virendra
Singh to hand-over half-land of the house
and Rs. 60,000/- from the amount received
under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Scheme to
them. In the application, it was further
stated that the aforesaid Krishna Devi,
Vinod Singh and Sanjay Singh extended
threat to Virendra Singh to hand over the
land and money to them within five to six
days otherwise they will kill him. In the
application, it had further been stated that
the aforesaid Krishna Devi, Vinod Singh
and Sanjay Singh on 6.11.2023, in the
night, administered poison to Virendra
Singh and his wife and killed them. The
revisionist, through his application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., prayed that a
direction be issued commanding the police
station concerned to register an F.I.R. in the
matter and take adequate penal proceedings
against Vinod Singh, Krishna Devi and
Sanjay Singh.

6. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge on the aforesaid application filed by
the revisionist under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. sought a report from the police
station concerned. The Station House
Officer, Police Station Pailani, District
Banda submitted a report wherein, it was
stated that after post-mortem of the deadbodies, their viscera have been preserved
and have been sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory (F.S.L.) for the investigation.
The other allegations levelled in the
application were not found proved by the
police.

7. Learned Special Judge (Dacoity
Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions
Judge, Banda, had rejected the application
filed by the revisionist under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated
11.03.2024. The revisionist challenged the
aforesaid order dated 11.03.2024 by filing
the instant criminal revision before this
Court on 14.04.2024. The instant revision
was entertained by this Court vide order
dated 29.04.2024 and notice was issued to
Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. to Vinod Singh
thereafter, an application for correction in
the order dated 29.04.2024 was filed by the
revisionist and the said application was
registered as Criminal Misc. Correction
Application No. 1 of 2024. This Court
allowed the correction application vide
order dated 02.05.2024 and thereby, in
place of notice to Opposite Party No. 2,
notices to Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 were
issued. As per the service report available
in the order-sheet of this revision, notice of
this revision to Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. to
Mr. Vinod Singh was served on 07.05.2024.

8. It appears that after service of
notice of this criminal revision on Opposite
Party No. 2 i.e. on Vinod Singh, an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
was filed by Smt. Krishna Devi who is
Opposite Party No. 3 in this criminal
revision wherein, she claimed that the
present revisionist i.e. Mr. Rajendra Singh
and few other persons have administered
poison to her brother, Virendra Singh and
his wife and therefore, the First Information
Report be lodged against Mr. Rajendra
Singh and other persons and they may be
punished for the offence in question.

9. A very surprising fact which is
note-worthy, at this stage, is that Smt.
Krishna Devi i.e. Opposite Party No. 3, in
her application filed under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., has not stated as to on what date,
she contacted the police of Police Station
Pailani, District Banda for lodging of the
F.I.R. and in the application, she has only
said that when the F.I.R. was not lodged by
3 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
453
the police, she has sent application to the
Superintendent of Police, Banda through
registered post on 16.04.2024. It is also
noteworthy that the Virendra Singh and his
wife were found dead in the morning of
7.11.2023 and Smt. Krishna Devi, for the
first time, sent her application for lodging
of the F.I.R. to the Superintendent of
Police, Banda on 16.04.2024 i.e. after about
five months. However, the learned Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Banda
on
the
application filed by Smt. Krishna Devi
again sought a report from the police of the
Police Station Pailani, District Banda and
this time again, police submitted almost an
identical report which was submitted at
earlier point of time. Neither Smt. Krishna
Devi nor the police of the Police Station
concerned disclosed before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Banda that earlier an
application filed by the revisionist under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been rejected
and the order passed on his application is
subject matter of the Criminal Revision No.
1965 of 2024.

10.

Learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, without considering the fact of
delay in filing the application under Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
and
without
even
considering as to on what date, Smt.
Krishna Devi for the first time tried to
lodge the F.I.R. in respect of the crime in
question, straightway passed an order on
03.07.2024 whereby, direction had been
issued to the Station House Officer, Police
Station Pailani, District Banda to register
the First Information Report given by Smt.
Krishna Devi. Pursuant to the order dated
03.07.2024, the F.I.R. No. 0150 of 2024
had been registered in the Police Station
Pailani, District Banda under Sections 328
and
302
I.P.C.
against
the
present
revisionist i.e. Rajendra Singh, Braj Vilas
Singh, Braj Kishore Singh and Manmohan
Singh.

11. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for Opposite
Parties No. 2 to 4 has raised a preliminary
objection i.e. since one F.I.R., in respect of
the crime in question, had already been
registered as F.I.R. No. 0150 of 2024
wherein, the revisionist himself is an
accused, the instant revision has lost its
relevance, as there cannot be the second
F.I.R. in respect of the same crime.

12. Sri Srijan Pandey, learned
counsel appearing for the revisionist has
argued that if an application is filed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer that a
direction be issued to the police station
concerned to register the First Information
Report,
the
court
dealing
with
the
application is under obligation to see that
whether the contents of the application
disclose any cognizable offence and if
cognizable offence is disclosed, the court is
under obligation to issue a direction to the
police station concerned to register the F.I.R.
in respect of the crime. It has further been
argued that the contents of the application,
filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., in unequivocal terms, disclose a
cognizable offence and further even the
police report filed in the matter states that
the viscera has been preserved and has been
sent to F.S.L. and Smt. Krishna Devi also
wants share in the property of the deceased,
hence there was no occasion for the court to
reject the revisionist's application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but the learned
Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area
Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in
absolutely
arbitrary
manner
without
assigning any cogent reason, had rejected
the said application.
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. Learned counsel appearing for
the revisionist has submitted that once the
contents of the application filed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., in unequivocal
terms,
disclose
commission
of
the
cognizable offence, there is no necessity for
the court to direct the police to submit its
report and in the present case even in the
report filed by the police, it had come that
Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. Krishna Devi was
also wanting a share in the property of the
deceased therefore, there was no occasion
for the court to rule out the possibility of
the commission of the offence by Opposite
Parties No. 2 to 4, as such the court could
not have rejected the application filed by
the revisionist under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.

14. Learned counsel appearing for
the revisionist, to buttress his arguments,
has relied on the judgement rendered by the
Constitution
Bench
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lalita
Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh
and Others 2014 (2) SCC 1 and has
submitted that once contents of the
application filed under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C., in unequivocal terms, disclose
commission of the cognizable offence,
there is no need for the court to direct the
police to submit its report and the court
straightway should issue direction to the
police station concerned to register F.I.R.
and investigate the matter.

15. Learned counsel appearing for
the revisionist has argued that the law in
respect of the second F.I.R., regarding the
same
incident,
had
already
been
crystallized through series of judgements
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and by this Court wherein, it had been
categorically held that the second F.I.R., in
respect of the same incident, can be lodged
if the informant is a different person to that
of the informant of the first F.I.R., the
version of the incident given by the
informant is different to that of the version
given by the informant in the first F.I.R.
and the accused are different persons. It has
further been submitted that in the case at
hand, informant is the revisionist whereas
the informant in the F.I.R. already lodged is
Smt. Krishna Devi. The version in respect
of the incident given in the application filed
by the revisionist under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. is altogether different to that of the
version given by Smt. Krishna Devi in the
F.I.R. already lodged and the accused of the
crime in the application filed by the
revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
are different persons to that of the accused
in the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Krishna Devi.

16. Sri Srijan Pandey, learned
counsel appearing for the revisionist has
relied on the judgement rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and Others
(2004) 13 SCC 292, judgement rendered in
the case of Surender Kaushik and Others
Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2013) 5 SCC
148 and judgement and order dated
26.02.2020 rendered by the Division Bench
of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 24812 of 2019 (Deokali Vs.
State of U.P. and 58 Others) and has
submitted that in the said judgements, it
had categorically been held that second
F.I.R., regarding same incident, can be
registered if the informants are different
persons, the versions of the incident in both
the cases are different and the persons
accused for the crime are different.

17. Learned counsel appearing for
the revisionist has vehemently argued that
the peculiar facts of the case, in categorical
terms, demonstrate that the F.I.R. lodged by
3 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
455
Smt. Krishna Devi is nothing but a tactic to
anyhow save her from the punishment of
the offence in question, as it was the
revisionist who on the date of incident itself
started the proceedings for lodging of the
F.I.R. and even he immediately filed
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
therefore, it would be in the interest of
justice that this Court may allow this
revision and set-aside the impugned order
dated 11.03.2024 with a direction to
learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected
Area
Act)/Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Banda to reconsider the application filed by
the
revisionist
under
Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C., afresh and issue direction to the
police station concerned to register the
F.I.R.

18. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for Opposite
Parties No. 2 to 4 has argued that once an
F.I.R. had been registered in respect of one
incident, the second F.I.R. for the same
incident cannot be registered. Sri I.K.
Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate has
relied on the judgement rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T.
Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC
181 and the judgement rendered in the case
of Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar,
(2016) 3 SCC 8.

19. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned
counsel appearing for Opposite Parties
No. 2 to 4 has also submitted that the
revisionist himself, with the help of few
other persons, had administered poison to
Virendra
Singh
and
his
wife
and
therefore, just to save himself, he is
trying to anyhow get his First Information
Report lodged. He has further submitted
that there is neither any illegality nor any
infirmity in the impugned order dated
11.03.2024 therefore, the instant criminal
revision is liable to be dismissed by this
Court.

20. I have considered the rival
arguments advanced by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties and
have perused the documents on record of
this criminal revision.

21. Before proceeding to decide
the legal issues raised in this criminal
revision, this Court finds it appropriate to
take note of certain facts of the case which
are as under:

22. The Virendra Singh and his
wife were found dead in their home in the
morning of 7.11.2023. The revisionist on
the same day approached to the concerned
police station for lodging of the F.I.R.
against Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 but the
police ousted him from the police station.
The revisionist, immediately on 21.12.2023
appeared before the Superintendent of
Police, Banda and sent an application on
22.12.2023 through registered post for
lodging of the F.I.R. Since the F.I.R. was
not registered by the police, the revisionist
immediately
filed
an
application
on
26.02.2024 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
The application filed by the revisionist,
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., had been
rejected vide order dated 11.03.2024. The
revisionist challenged the order dated
11.03.2024 by filing the instant Criminal
Revision No. 1965 of 2024 which was
entertained by this Court and notice was
issued to Opposite Party No. 2 vide order
dated 29.04.2024. The notice of this
revision was served upon Opposite Party
No. 2 on 07.05.2024.

23. Till service of notice of this
revision upon Opposite Party No. 2, there
was absolute silence on the part of
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 and after
service of notice of this revision upon
Opposite Party No. 2, the Opposite Party
No. 3 filed an application on 10.05.2024
before
the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Banda for lodging of an F.I.R.
against the revisionist and three other
persons for the same incident. The
Opposite Party No. 3 did not disclose that
the application filed by the revisionist
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. had already
been rejected. Even otherwise, Opposite
Party No. 3, in her application filed on
10.05.2024, did not disclose as to on what
date, she actually approached to the
concerned police station for lodging of the
F.I.R. and in the application, it has been
stated that she has given an application on
16.04.2024 to the Superintendent of Police,
Banda for lodging of the F.I.R. i.e. after
about five months from the date of
incident.

24. The facts noted hereinabove, in
categorical
terms,
demonstrate
that
Opposite Party No. 3 remained silent for
about five months and when the application
filed by the revisionist under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected and the
criminal revision against the rejection order
was entertained by this Court, the Opposite
Party No. 3 filed an application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the said
application
had
been
allowed
and
consequently an F.I.R. had been registered
bearing F.I.R. No. 0150 of 2024 in Police
Station Pailani, District Banda.

25. This Court does not have any
occasion to make any comment on the
order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda
whereby, the application filed by Opposite
Party No. 3 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
had been allowed and the F.I.R. had been
registered but the aforesaid facts, primafacie demonstrate that everything has not
been done in accordance with law.

26. Now this Court proceeds to
consider the issue, as to whether the
contents of the application filed by the
revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The relevant paragraphs of
the application, filed by the revisionist
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., are extracted
as under:

"2. यह दक प्राथी/वािी के बडे भाई
बीरेन्र दसांह पुत्र दशवनरायन दसांह के नाम प्रधान मांत्री
आवास योजना के तहत कालोनी बनवाने हेतु एक लाख
बीस हजार रूपये दमला था। प्राथी के पररवाररक चचेरा
भाई दवनोि दसांह और मेरी सगी बहन कृष्णा िेवी ने
प्रधान प्रदतदनदध सांजय दसांह के कहने पर गुण्डई व िबांगई
के िम पर अनगाल तरीके से कालोनी की जमीन पर
आधा दहस्सा बीरेन्र दसांह से मााँग रहे थे।

3. यह दक प्राथी/ वािी के बडे भाई बीरेन्र
दसांह से पररवाररक चचेरा भाई दवनोि दसांह और सगी
बहन कृष्णा िेवी व प्रधान प्रदतदनदध सांजय दसांह ने
बीरेन्र दसांह को प्रधानमांत्री आवास का दमला आधा
रूपया मु० 60,000/- उक्त तीनों लोग माांग रहे थे,
लेदकन बीरेन्र दसांह ने कालोनी की जमीन का आधा
दहस्सा व प्रधानमांत्री आवास का दमला आधा रूपया िेने
से इन्कार कर दिया।
4. यह दक तभी दवनोि दसांह की बीरेन्र
दसांह की घरौनी आबािी की जमीन गाटा सांख्या 97 में
प्रधान प्रदतदनदध सांजय दसांह जो ररस्ते में दबनोि दसांह का
सगा भनेज िामाि ने अनगाल (गलत) तरीके से नाम
चढवा दिया। लेदकन जानकारी होने पर बीरेन्र दसांह ने
एतराज दकया, दजसका प्राथाना पत्र साथ में सांलग्न है।
5. यह दक उक्त तीनो दवनोि दसांह और
कृष्णा िेवी व सांजय दसांह ने बीरेन्र दसांह से कहा दक
अभी 5-6 दिन का समय है, तुम्हारे पास कालोनी की
आधी जमीन व कालोनी बनाने हेतु दमला आधा 60
हजार रूपया हमें िे िो नहीं तो तुम्हें हम लोग जान से
मार िेंगे।
3 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
6. यह दक उक्त तीनों ( दवनोि दसांह और
कृष्णा िेवी व प्रधान प्रदतदनदध सांजय दसांह) ने योजना
बनाकर योजनाबद्ध तरीके से मुझ प्राथी के बडे भाई
बीरेन्र दसांह व भाभी शान्ती िेवी पत्नी बीरेन्र दसांह
दनवासी ग्राम लसडा थाना पैलानी जनपि बााँिा को
दिनाांक 06.11.2023 की रात में जहर दखलाकर मार
दिया है, दजनके पोस्टमाटाम की ररपोटा साथ में सांलग्न है।
7. यह दक वािी के बडे भाई बीरेन्र दसांह ने
यह बाते करने के पूवा दिनाांक 02.11.2023 के पहले
बताया था, इसदलये प्राथी को पूणा दवश्वास हो गया है
दक इन्होने ने ही जहर दखलाकर प्राथी के बडे भाई
बीरेन्र दसांह को मार दिया।
8. यह दक प्राथी/ वािी को दिनाांक
07.11.2023 को सुबह लगभग 6 बजे हमारी बहन
कृष्णा िेवी ने अपने बचने के दलये दक मैं न फांसू
इसदलये मेरे घर आकर बताया दक भैया बीरेन्र व भाभी
शान्ती िेवी खत्म हो गये है। प्राथी मौके पर गया और
िेखा तो िोनों खत्म हो चुके थे। पोस्टमाटाम ररपोटा
दबसरा दप्रजवा की जाांच हेतु ररपोटा भेजी जा चुकी है।
9. यह दक प्राथी/वािी की बहन कृष्णा
िेवी और दवनोि दसांह ने मृतक बीरेन्र दसांह का कालोनी
बनवाने हेतु घर में रखा रूपया 35000/- व चााँिी की
पायल एक जोडी वजन लगभग 100 ग्राम और कान
के सुई धागा सोने के वजन लगभग 5 ग्राम व बीरेन्र
दसांह व उसकी पत्नी के मोबाइल व बैंक की पास बुक
और आधार काडा व अन्य कागजात चोरी कर लूट कर
ले गये।
10. यह दक मुझ प्राथी/ वािी को उक्त
तीनों लोगो ने (दवनोि दसांह और कृष्णा िेवी व प्रधान
प्रदतदनदध सांजय दसांह धमकी दिया है दक जैसे उन िोनों
को जहर दखलाकर मार दिया है, उसी तरह तुम्हे भी
जहर दखलाकर जान से मार िेंगे अगर तुमने हमारे
दखलाफ कानूनी कायावाही दकया, क्योंदक प्रधान
प्रदतदनदध थाने से लेकर उच्चादधकाररयों व राजनीदत में
पकड बनाये हुये है। तभी मौके पर खडे बृजदवलाश व
मनमोहन दसांह पुत्रगण सुरजपाल दसांह व गाांव व पडोस
के तमाम व्यदक्तयों ने उक्त लोगो से दवरोध करते हुए
कहा दक तुम लोग गलत कर रहे हो।"

27. The aforesaid contents of the
application filed by the revisionist under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. categorically
demonstrate commission of the cognizable
offence and the motive for Opposite Parties
No. 2 to 4 to kill Virendra Singh and his
wife by administering them poison. The
revisionist, in Paragraph No. 10 of his
application, had categorically stated that
Vinod Singh, Krishna Devi and Sanjay
Singh have extended threat to him by
saying
that
they
will
kill
him
by
administering poison as they have done
with Virendra Singh and his wife. Once this
Court finds that the story of commission of
the cognizable offence is there in the
application along with motive and further
there is an affirmative claim of the
applicant that the accused have committed
the cognizable offence, there cannot be any
doubt that the contents of the application,
filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., disclose
commission of the cognizable offence.
Learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected
Area Act)/learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Banda on the application, filed by
the revisionist under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C., called for a police report and the
following police report was submitted by
the Station House Officer of the Police
Station, Pailani, District Banda:

"सािर दनवेिन है आवेिक श्री राजेन्र दसांह
पुत्र दशवनारायन दसांह दन० लसडा थाना पैलानी जनपि
बाांिा के प्रा०पत्र की जाांच मुझ उ०दन० द्वारा की गयी तो
वाक्यात इस प्रकार पाये गये दक आवेिक राजेन्र दसांह
उपरोक्त का भाई वीरेन्र दसांह व भाभी शादन्त िेवी को
प्रधानमांत्री आवास योजना के अन्तगात आवास लगभग
6 माह पूवा दमला था, दजसकी िो दकस्त क्रमशैः 40
हजार, 70 हजार रूपये प्राप्त हो चुका है। कालोनी का
िीवाल चारो तरफ खडी है। अभी छथ नहीं पडी है शेष
10 हजार रूपये मकान कम्पलीट होने के पिात दमलता
है। मात्र वही धन शेष है। आवास का प्राप्त धन में से
आधा पैसा ग्राम प्रधान प्रदतदनदध व दवनोि दसांह के द्वारा
मााँगने की बात की जााँच से पुदष्ट नहीं हुई तथा जेवर पैसा
मकान से लेने व चुराने की बात असत्य है क्योंदक घटना
के
तत्काल
बाि
स्थानीय
पुदलस
दिनाांक
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
07.11.2023 को पांचायतनामा की कायावाही हेतु
मौके पर जाकर पांचायतनामा की कायावाही की गयी थी
बाि पांचायतनामा, पोस्टमाटाम होने के उपरान्त िोनो
मृतको की पीएम ररपोटा में दबसरा दप्रजवा दकया गया है।
पांचायतनामा की कायावाही मुझ उ०दन० द्वारा ही की
गयी थी। घटनास्थल का दनरीक्षण से पाया गया दक खुले
खण्डहर कच्चा मकान के अन्िर प्लादस्टक पन्नी लगी
हुई थी दजसके अन्िर िोनों मृतकों का शव पडा था मौके
की जाांच पडताल एवां दनरीक्षण से वहाां पर ऐसी कोई
वस्तु का रखना या होना नहीं पाया गया था क्योंदक
खुल्ला दबना िरवाजे का पूरा मकान था प्लादस्टक पन्नी
के अन्िर चारपाई के नीचे टीन में थोडा सा आटा था।
िेखने से बहुत गरीब प्रतीत होते थे। उस वक्त वहाां मौजूि
लोगो द्वारा आदथाक तांगी की बात बतायी गयी थी। गाांव
के लोगो का कहना था दक इनके कोई औलाि नहीं थी
व आदथाक तांगी आदि से परेशान होकर वीरेन्र की पत्नी
शादन्त िेवी ने जहर खा दलया था। दजसकी सूचना वीरेन्र
दसांह ने रात में ही अपने आस पास एवां आवेिक राजेन्र
को भी दिया लेदकन उस समय कोई उसे बचाने के दलए
प्रयास नहीं दकया दजससे शादन्त िेवी का पदत वीरेन्र भी
दनराश होकर हडबडाहट में स्वयां भी जहर खाां दलया था।
चूाँदक आवेिक राजेन्र मृतक वीरेन्र व उसकी पत्नी
शादन्तिेवी से अलग रहते थे। राजेन्र की शािी भी नहीं
हुई है। आवेिक ने अपने भाई एवां बहन को बचाने का
कुछ भी प्रयास नहीं दकया था आवेिक की बहन कृष्णा
िेवी पुत्री दशवनरायन अपने मायके दपता के साथ रहती
थी दपता की मृत्यु के पिात अपने भाई वीरेन्र के
सादनध्य में रहती है। चूाँदक कृष्णा की शािी के पिात ही
पदत का िेहान्त हो गया था ऐसी दस्थदत में वह अपने
ससुराल नहीं जाती थी। मायके में ही बनी रहती थी।
मृतक वीरेन्र की कोई औलाि न होने के कारण उसकी
सम्पदि लगभग 9 बीघा जमीन व कृष्णा भी अपने
जीवन यापन के दलए कुछ दहस्सा चाहती है। उक्त
सम्पदि को आवेिक अपनी बहन कृष्णा को नहीं िेना
चाहता है। चूाँदक आवेिक राजेन्र अपने दहस्से की
लगभग पूरी जमीन बेच दिया है मात्र 2-3 बीघा बची
है। अब आवेिक चाहता है दक मृतक भाई वीरेन्र की
पूरी 9 बीघा जमीन मुझे अकेले प्राप्त हो जाये परन्तु इस
बात से उसकी बहन कृष्णा सांतुष्ट नहीं है और अन्य
दवपक्षीगण भी इस बात से सहमत नहीं है। आवेिक द्वारा
गाांविारी के कारण मनगढन्त कहानी बनाकर दवपक्षीगणों
पर असत्य आरोप लगाकर प्रा०पत्र अन्तगात धारा
156(3) सीआरपीसी दिया गया है। जााँच से प्रा०पत्र
में लगाये गये आरोपों की पुदष्ट नहीं हुई है।"
28. The aforesaid police report
submitted by the Station House Officer,
Police Station Pailani, District Banda
though states that the allegations levelled
by the revisionist in his application, filed
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., have not
been found proved but at the same time, it
states that the deceased was owner of the
nine bighas of agricultural land and both
i.e. the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2
i.e. Smt. Krishna Devi wanted to take that
land in their possession. From the contents
of the police report submitted in the matter,
the complicity of Smt. Krishna Devi in the
commission of the offence in question
cannot be ruled out as she is also having
motive.

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
its Constitution Bench judgement rendered
in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra) had
held that the registration of F.I.R. is
mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C., if the
information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no inquiry is
permissible in such a situation. It has
further been held that if the information
received does not disclose a cognizable
offence but indicates the necessity for an
inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain as to whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not. For
ready reference, paragraph 120 of the
judgement
rendered
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lalita
Kumari (Supra) is extracted as under:

"120.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid discussion, we hold:

120.1. The registration of
FIR is mandatory under Section
154 of the Code, if the information
discloses
commission
of
a
cognizable
offence
and
no
3 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
preliminary inquiry is permissible
in such a situation.
120.2. If the information
received
does
not disclose
a
cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity
for
an
inquiry,
a
preliminary
inquiry
may
be
conducted
only
to
ascertain
whether
cognizable
offence
is
disclosed or not.
120.3.
If
the
inquiry
discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be
registered.
In
cases
where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing
the complaint, a copy of the entry
of such closure must be supplied to
the first informant forthwith and
not later than one week. It must
disclose reasons in brief for closing
the complaint and not proceeding
further.
120.4. The police officer
cannot avoid his duty of registering
offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken
against erring officers who do not
register the FIR if information
received
by
him
discloses
a
cognizable offence.
120.5.
The
scope
of
preliminary inquiry is not to verify
the veracity or otherwise of the
information received but only to
ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and
in which cases preliminary inquiry
is to be conducted will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each
case. The category of cases in
which preliminary inquiry may be
made are as under:
(a)
Matrimonial
disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c)
Medical
negligence
cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is
abnormal delay/laches in initiating
criminal prosecution, for example,
over 3 months' delay in reporting
the matter without satisfactorily
explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only
illustrations and not exhaustive of
all conditions which may warrant
preliminary inquiry.
120.7. While ensuring and
protecting the rights of the accused
and the complainant, a preliminary
inquiry should be made time-bound
and in any case it should not
exceed fifteen days generally and in
exceptional
cases,
by
giving
adequate reasons, six weeks' time is
provided. The fact of such delay
and the causes of it must be
reflected in the General Diary
entry.
120.8. Since the General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is
the record of all information
received in a police station, we
direct that all information relating
to cognizable offences, whether
resulting in registration of FIR or
leading to an inquiry, must be
mandatorily
and
meticulously
reflected in the said diary and the
decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry must also be reflected, as
mentioned above."

30. This Court finds that the
Constitution
Bench
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its judgement rendered in
the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra) had
created two categories; firstly where the
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contents
of
the
information
disclose
commission of the cognizable offence and
secondly where the contents, in categorical
terms, do not disclose commission of the
cognizable
offence
but
indicates
the
necessity for an inquiry. In the first
scenario, there is no necessity for any
preliminary inquiry and registration of the
F.I.R. is must but in second scenario, the
direction for preliminary inquiry by the
police can be given.

31. Now looking into the facts of
the present case, it is quite apparent that the
contents of the application, filed by the
revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,
in unequivocal terms demonstrate the
commission of the cognizable offence
therefore, in view of the judgement
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra),
there was no necessity for the court to
call for a police report. In the matter of
the revisionist, though in the police
report, it had been stated that the
allegations levelled, in his application
filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., have
not been found proved but at the same
time, the motive to commit crime with
the Opposite Party No. 3 has not been
ruled out.

32. In the given facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the view that the learned Special Judge
(Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional
Sessions Judge, Banda ought not to have
accepted the police report as a gospel truth
because the contents of the application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., disclose
commission
of
a
cognizable
offence
therefore, the court, while rejecting the
application filed by the revisionist under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., had committed
manifest error of law.
33.