# Rajeshwar Prasad and others v. The State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 289
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-02-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.19883 of 2007
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajeshwar-prasad-and-others-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-another-41049
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 183territorial Jurisdiction-offence took place
in district Fatehpur during course of
railway journey in Ist class coachRejection of application under Section
156 (1) by Magistrate Fatehpur with
observation to lodge the same at Patnawholly misconceived-Magistrate wrongly
interpreted the said provision-order setaside-with
direction
to
decide
the
application afresh in accordance with
law.

Held: Para 7

The aforesaid provision clearly indicates
that it is not essential for a person to
lodge complaint in the Court of origin of
journey or the court of its destination. In
the present case the journey started
from Delhi and ended at Patna and
therefore, the applicant was well within
his right to lodge a complaint at any
intervening district before the competent
Magistrate. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Fatehpur wrongly interpreted the said
provision by holding that the FIR should
have been got lodged at Patna. This
opinion of CJM is contrary to Section 183
Cr.P.C. ex-facie and on this ground alone
I set aside the impugned order dated
8.8.2007 passed by CJM Fatehpur on the
application
of
the
applicant
under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
Moolbaksh 25 Criminal Law General page 439

## Text

1 All] Rajeshwar Prasad and others V. The State of U.P. and another
289
proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if
they so advised.

6. With these observations, the
revision is hereby dismissed, being not
legally maintainable. Interim order dated
09.03.2006 stands vacated.

7. The office is directed to send a
copy of this order to the lower Court
concerned for further necessary action.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.19883 of
2007

Premjit Singh

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & others
...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Satish Chaturvedi
Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava

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

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 183territorial Jurisdiction-offence took place
in district Fatehpur during course of
railway journey in Ist class coachRejection of application under Section
156 (1) by Magistrate Fatehpur with
observation to lodge the same at Patnawholly misconceived-Magistrate wrongly
interpreted the said provision-order setaside-with
direction
to
decide
the
application afresh in accordance with
law.

Held: Para 7

The aforesaid provision clearly indicates
that it is not essential for a person to
lodge complaint in the Court of origin of
journey or the court of its destination. In
the present case the journey started
from Delhi and ended at Patna and
therefore, the applicant was well within
his right to lodge a complaint at any
intervening district before the competent
Magistrate. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Fatehpur wrongly interpreted the said
provision by holding that the FIR should
have been got lodged at Patna. This
opinion of CJM is contrary to Section 183
Cr.P.C. ex-facie and on this ground alone
I set aside the impugned order dated
8.8.2007 passed by CJM Fatehpur on the
application
of
the
applicant
under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
Moolbaksh 25 Criminal Law General page 439

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad. J.)

1. Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi,
learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned AGA in opposition.

2. The applicant has prayed for
quashing of the order dated 8.8.2007
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Fatehpur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
refusing to direct registration of FIR and
investigation of the offence.

3. At the time of admission, learned
AGA contended that notice be issued to
respondents nos.2 and 3, namely, Smt.
Sujata and Ms. Bandana Preyashi before
finally disposing of this application. This
is a stage where the FIR has not been
registered as yet. Whether the FIR should
be registered or not is a matter which is to
be decided from the prayer made by the
victim
complainant.
The
proposed
accused persons (respondents nos.2 and 3,
namely, Smt. Sujata and Ms. Bandana
Preyashi) have got no right to be heard at
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
this stage. Hearing of accused at a stage
on the question as to whether the FIR
should be registered against them or not is
not sanctified by statute nor is required.
Therefore, I do not proposed to issue
notice to respondents nos. 2 and 3, who
are proposed accused which deciding this
application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
invited the attention of the Court on
Annexure No.2 to the affidavit appended
along with this Criminal Miscellaneous
Application which is the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by
the applicant before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Fatehpur. A perusal of said
application indicates that the applicant is a
DIG Administration Working in Railway
Protection Force, Railway Board, Rail
Bhawan, New Delhi and is member of
Scheduled
Tribes.
On
8.7.2007
at
5.00p.m. he started his journey from
Sampoorna Kranti Express Train No.2394
from New Delhi in F-Cabin of AC-Ist
class Coach. In the said cabin the two
proposed accused persons were also
travelling. During the journey respondent
no.2 Smt. Sujata introduced respondent
no.3 Ms. Bandana Preyashi to be her
sister and herself as the wife of an I. P.S.
officer of Bihar cadre. The conversation
between them started and the applicant
informed that he is going to Patna on
some official visit and he belongs to
Himachal Pradesh. It is further alleged
that Smt. Sujata started insisting for
change of birth, which was declined by
the applicant as he had to do some official
work while travelling and had some
medical problem with his right ankle as
well. It is further alleged that the two
ladies got annoyed and the petitioner was
addressed by his caste in the conversation
between them and they also among
themselves, exchanged something in
exasperation. After sometime the baby of
Smt.
Sujata
started
disturbing
the
applicant and started playing with the
applicant's mobile phone on which the
applicant objected and requested Smt.
Sujata
to
control
her
child.
After
sometimes it is alleged, that the child
picked up the paper and torned the notes,
inked by the applicant. Applicant on this
took the child to task which act infuriated
Smt. Sujata who being highly agitated
started abusing filthily words and uttered
derogatory remarks which according to
the applicant are "Your Bastard Tribals;
Chooti Jaat Ka Scheduled Tribe; Ise
Bihar Pahunchne per dekh lenge."
Meanwhile the security aid of the
applicant Sri Ramzan ASI/RPSF entered
into the cabin to inquire about the dinner.
Two more co-passengers standing in
passage also witnessed the incident.
Applicant felt humiliated because of the
utterances and protested against it. At
12.20 a.m. applicant switched on the
reading lamp to attain the natures call but
was scolded by Smt. Sujata asking him to
put off the lamp. The applicant tried to
pacify her but was faced with following
utterances "Your bloody jungles, Bihar
aane wala hai, I will teach you some
manners by getting you sent behind the
bars." Applicant then called the coach
attendant and on his arrival Smt. Sujata
started crying that the applicant has
misbehaved with her and in that venture
she was joined by applicant no.2 as well.
It is further alleged that out of the two
ladies Smt. Sujata forcibly snatched the
official mobile phone and identity card of
the applicant and did not allow to
applicant to go out of the Cabin. Sri S.N.
Singh, Coach Attendant, however, got the
mobile phone and identity card of the
applicant returned to him. It is further
1 All] Premjit Singh V. State of U.P. and others
291
alleged that to defame the applicant both
ladies got adverse news made in the
media both print and visual against the
applicant who felt helpless at Patna where
those two ladies wielded their powers and
influence against him. After completion
of his work applicant returned to Delhi
and then sent a complaint S.P. Railways,
Allahabad, S.H.O. G.R.P. Fatehpur on
13th July under postal Certificate followed
by another complaint dated 28th July
2007. He also dispatched the complaint to
Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow
and
DG/Special
Branch
Lucknow but no action was taken against
the ladies. It is alleged that the accused
persons not being a member of SC/ST
intentionally insulted and intimidated the
applicant with the intention to humiliate
him on 8/9th July 2007 within the public
view and they also gave false and
frivolous information to the public
servants who then use their lawful power
to the annoyance the member of the
SC/ST and resultantly the proposed
accused have committed offence under
Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. It was, therefore,
prayed that the accused persons have
committed offences under Sections 341,
379, 506 I.P.C and Section 3 SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989).
Wielding the power of the Magistrate
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. it was
prayed that the FIR be got registered
against the accused persons and the
investigation be ordered.

5.

Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Fatehpur vide his impugned order dated
8.8.2007 rejected the said application by
passing a detailed order wherein he has
mentioned that against the applicant a
case under Section 354 IPC is registered
in which even the charge sheet has been
submitted. He also recorded a finding that
the incident is alleged to be at 1.00 a.m.
and at that time the train Sampoorna
Kranti Express 2394 had reached Sirathu
in district Allahabad. He also recorded a
finding that the incident occurred inside
the AC Coach and not in a public view.
Relying upon a judgement reported in
Moolbaksh 25 Criminal Law General
page 439 C.J.M. Fatehpur came to the
conclusion that the FIR should have been
got registered at Patna. He was of the
opinion that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
only that court should pass an order for
registration of FIR and investigation
which has got the jurisdiction to take
cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and
holding thus, C.J.M. Fatehpur rejected the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P .C.
filed by the applicant, which order is
under
challenged
in
this
Criminal
Miscellaneous Application.

6. After hearing the arguments of
learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned AGA and after going through the
averment made in the application it is
perceptibly clear that the offence alleged
was committed during the course of
journey. If any offence is committed
during the course of the journey then the
FIR can be registered at any place, which
falls during the course of the journey.
C.J.M. Fatehpur is not right in holding
that he had no jurisdiction and the train
had reached Sirathu. The incident had
occurred during the course of a journey
and it started much before Sirathu. The
opinion of C.J.M. Fatehpur, therefore, in
my view, is not right that he had no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offence. Criminal Procedure Code in
Chapter XIII from Section 177 to 189
deals with jurisdiction of criminal courts
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
in inquiry and trial. Section 183 Cr.P.C.
provides as follows:-

"183. Office committed on Journey
or voyage- when an offence is committed
whilst the person by or against whom, or
the thing in respect of which, the offence
is committed is in the course of
performing a journey or voyage, the
offence may be inquired into or tried by a
Court through or into whose local
jurisdiction that person or thing passed in
the course of that journey or voyage."

7. The aforesaid provision clearly
indicates that it is not essential for a
person to lodge complaint in the Court of
origin of journey or the court of its
destination. In the present case the
journey started from Delhi and ended at
Patna and therefore, the applicant was
well within his right to lodge a complaint
at any intervening district before the
competent Magistrate. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Fatehpur wrongly interpreted
the said provision by holding that the FIR
should have been got lodged at Patna.
This opinion of CJM is contrary to
Section 183 Cr.P.C. ex-facie and on this
ground alone I set aside the impugned
order dated 8.8.2007 passed by CJM
Fatehpur on the application of the
applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

8. Resultantly, this application is
allowed. The impugned order dated
8.8.2007 is hereby quashed and the matter
is remanded back to CJM Fatehpur to
decide the application of the applicant
afresh in accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9213 of 2008

Smt. Vakila

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Pandey
Sri M.I. Faruqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reform
Act, 1950-Section 198 (9) 132-allotment
of land in the year 1991-reserved for
public
purpose-benefit
of
deemed
abatement under Section 198 (9) not
available-after
10.11.1980-heldcancellation proper.

Held: Para 9

The
above
provision
indicates
that
allotments, made prior to 'said date' i.e.,
November 10, 1980, of land specified
under
Section
132
as
sirdar
or
bhumidhar shall be treated to a asami
year to year, thus, the above deeming
clause comes in operation with regard to
land allotted prior to November 10,
1980. The allotment to the petitioner in
the present case is allotment which was
made with the approval dated 14th
August, 1991 subsequent to specified
date. The Legislature itself confined
deeming clause as Asami with regard to
only those sirdar or bhumidhar who were
allotted land prior to November 10,
1980. The said legal fiction or benefit
cannot be extended to the allottees of
land specified under Section 132 .of the
Act who were allotted land after the said