# Ram Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 957
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4689 of 2006
- **Bench:** K.N. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kumar-gautam-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40709
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-S-156 (3)-
Magistrate
being
satisfied
about
cognizable
offence
made
out-being
fracture
in
right
hand-directed
the
Magistrate
to
Register
and
for
investigation-interference
by
the
revisional
court
on
the
ground
of
previous enmity between the partiesheld-illegal and not tenable in the eye of
law-session judge mis interpreted the
law laid down by this court in Gulab
Chand Upadhyay case reported in 2002
(44) ACC-670-court should examine the
genuineness of each complaint on its
own wisdom.

Held: Para 4 and 5

The approach on the fact is quite
erroneous. If there is previous enmity
between the parties that does not mean
that any offence, committed thereafter,
should go un-noticed. There is fracture in
the hand of one injured and it makes out
a cognizable offence. Whenever said
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
discloses
a
cognizable
offence,
the
Magistrate
is
bound
to
direct
for
registration of the case. The law laid
down in Gulab Chandra case (supra) has
been wrongly interpreted. It gives a
guide line to the Magistrate. Suppose, in
a murder case, where all the accused are
known and murder takes place in broad
day light and on inaction of police, if the
complainant approaches the Magistrate
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., whether
his prayer can be thrown away, taking
resort to Gulab Chandra case (supra)
that offence was committed in broad day
light and accused are known, hence case
could not be registered.

This is absolutely misinterpretation of
the judgment of this Court by the
revisional court and the law laid down
did not permit the court to intepret in
such a way. Any guide line given by this
Court
has
to
be
followed
in
the
circumstances of the case. There may be
false type of complaint. There may be
some
complaint
of
civil
nature
or
otherwise or some complaint in which
the cognizable offence is patently made
out. The courts should examine the
genuineness of each complaint and in his
wisdom, should pass a proper order. The
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
order of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.3 Meerut, as passed in the
revision, is absolutely illegal and not
tenable in the eyes of law.
Case law discussed:
2002 (44) ACC-670

## Text

3 All] Ram Kumar Gautam V. State of U.P. and others
957
taken any loan from the applicant. He was
bruetly murdered only because he has
refused to cut the varseem of the
applicant. The prosecution story is fully
corroborated by medical evidence. The
deceased has received anti mortem
injuries and the cause of death was
strangulation. In such circumstances the
applicant may not be released on bail.

6. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case the applicant is not
entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for
bail is refused.

7. According this bail application is
rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4689 of
2006

Ram Kumar Gautam

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.M. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-S-156 (3)-
Magistrate
being
satisfied
about
cognizable
offence
made
out-being
fracture
in
right
hand-directed
the
Magistrate
to
Register
and
for
investigation-interference
by
the
revisional
court
on
the
ground
of
previous enmity between the partiesheld-illegal and not tenable in the eye of
law-session judge mis interpreted the
law laid down by this court in Gulab
Chand Upadhyay case reported in 2002
(44) ACC-670-court should examine the
genuineness of each complaint on its
own wisdom.

Held: Para 4 and 5

The approach on the fact is quite
erroneous. If there is previous enmity
between the parties that does not mean
that any offence, committed thereafter,
should go un-noticed. There is fracture in
the hand of one injured and it makes out
a cognizable offence. Whenever said
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
discloses
a
cognizable
offence,
the
Magistrate
is
bound
to
direct
for
registration of the case. The law laid
down in Gulab Chandra case (supra) has
been wrongly interpreted. It gives a
guide line to the Magistrate. Suppose, in
a murder case, where all the accused are
known and murder takes place in broad
day light and on inaction of police, if the
complainant approaches the Magistrate
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., whether
his prayer can be thrown away, taking
resort to Gulab Chandra case (supra)
that offence was committed in broad day
light and accused are known, hence case
could not be registered.

This is absolutely misinterpretation of
the judgment of this Court by the
revisional court and the law laid down
did not permit the court to intepret in
such a way. Any guide line given by this
Court
has
to
be
followed
in
the
circumstances of the case. There may be
false type of complaint. There may be
some
complaint
of
civil
nature
or
otherwise or some complaint in which
the cognizable offence is patently made
out. The courts should examine the
genuineness of each complaint and in his
wisdom, should pass a proper order. The
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
order of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.3 Meerut, as passed in the
revision, is absolutely illegal and not
tenable in the eyes of law.
Case law discussed:
2002 (44) ACC-670

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek
Kumar
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
opposite party no. 4 to 7 and learned
A.G.A.

2. From the record, it transpires that
petitioner Ram Kumar Gautam moved an
application before the Judicial Magistrate,
Mawana, District Meerut, under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed and it
was directed by the Magistrate that S.O.
Mawana, District Meerut, shall register a
case and investigate. Against the said
order, a revision was filed by the opposite
party no. 4 to 7 and after hearing the
parties the said revision was allowed,
setting aside the order of the Magistrate. It
was observed that if petitioner so likes, he
may file a complaint.

3. The allegation in the application
is that opposite parties Pankaj, Manoj,
Harish and Om Prakash came along with
danda, gun and iron rod, entered into the
shop of the petitioner and badly assaulted
petitioner and his brother. In support of
this, the injury report was also filed
showing a contusion and from X-ray, a
fracture was also found. In this way, the
offence goes minimum to the extent of
Section 325 Indian Penal Code, besides
other sections of the India Penal Code.

4. The revisional court heard the
parties counsel but the said fact was
ignored on the ground that there has been
previous litigation between the parties.
The revisional court had traced the history
of the litigations between the parties and
came to the conclusion that Ram Kumar
Gautam was not injured and injury was
received at the thumb of Mahesh Gautam.
He has also resorted to a judgment of this
Court in Gulab Chandra Upadhyaya
Vs. State of U.P. (2002 (44) ACC-670.
The approach on the fact is quite
erroneous. If there is previous enmity
between the parties that does not mean
that any offence, committed thereafter,
should go un-noticed. There is fracture in
the hand of one injured and it makes out a
cognizable
offence.
Whenever
said
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
discloses
a
cognizable
offence,
the
Magistrate
is
bound
to
direct
for
registration of the case. The law laid
down in Gulab Chandra case (supra) has
been wrongly interpreted. It gives a guide
line to the Magistrate. Suppose, in a
murder case, where all the accused are
known and murder takes place in broad
day light and on inaction of police, if the
complainant approaches the Magistrate
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., whether
his prayer can be thrown away, taking
resort to Gulab Chandra case (supra) that
offence was committed in broad day light
and accused are known, hence case could
not be registered.

5.

This
is
absolutely
misinterpretation of the judgment of this
Court by the revisional court and the law
laid down did not permit the court to
intepret in such a way. Any guide line
given by this Court has to be followed in
the circumstances of the case. There may
be false type of complaint. There may be
some complaint of civil nature or
otherwise or some complaint in which the
cognizable offence is patently made out.
3 All] Parshuram V. D.D.C., Ballia and others
959
The
courts
should
examine
the
genuineness of each complaint and in his
wisdom, should pass a proper order. The
order of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.3 Meerut, as passed in the
revision, is absolutely illegal and not
tenable in the eyes of law.

6. Consequently the writ petition is
hereby allowed. The judgment and order
dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure No.6 to the
writ petition) passed by the Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 3,
Meerut
in
Criminal
Revision
No.
270/2005 is quashed. Whereas the order
dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Mawana district Meerut stands
restored. Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18339 of 2006

Parshuram

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhishek Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rahul Sahai
Sri M.K. Nigam
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1956Section
48-Revision-territorial
jurisdiction-property in dispute situated
in District Ballia-revision challenging the
order passed by S.O.C. Mau-the revisionheld-maintainable at Mau and not at
Ballia.

Held: Para 8, 13 & 14

I
have
considered
the
arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. In the
case of Darbari Lal (supra ) the property
in dispute was situate in district Jalaun.
The appeal filed against the order of
Consolidation Officer was transferred
from Jalaun to the Court of Settlement
Officer Consolidation Kanpur. Against
the appellate order passed by Settlement
Officer Consolidation Kanpur, a revision
was preferred before the Deputy Director
of
Consolidation
Jaldun
at
Orai.
Objection against the maintainability of
the revision before the Deputy Director
of Consolidation Jalaun at Orai was
rejected and the matter came to this
court. This court after considering the
provision of the Act and Rules specially
Section 48 and Rule III held that
revisional court of Jalun at Orai will have
no jurisdiction to hear the revision
against the order of the appellate
authority of Kanpur. The facts of the
case of Darbari Lal are identical to the
fact of the present case and the law laid
down in the said case applies with full
force.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the
two case laws relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents being clearly
distinguishable are of no help to him. On
the contrary the law laid down in the
case of Darbari Lal with which I am in
respectful agreement applies with full
force.

As a result, the writ petition stands
allowed, the impugned order of Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
dated
10.3.2006
is
hereby
quashed.
The
revision
filed
by
the
answering
respondents before Deputy Director of
Consolidation Ballia is not maintainable
and stands dismissed. It would however
be open to the respondents to file
revision afresh before the competent
court.
Case law discussed: