# Revisionist v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 126 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-01-09 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2003 - **Bench:** K.N. Sinha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39890 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri R.G. Padia Sri Prakash Padia Sri K.K. Roy Sri Ramesh Chandra Singh Sri Ram Harsh Sri P.K. Gupta Sri U.K. Uniyal S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- Extraordinary jurisdiction- Petitioner not approached with clean hand- guilty of suppressions material facts not entitled for any relief claimed for- Petition rejected. ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 her wishes. Therefore, we are of the view that detention of the petitioner in Nari Niketan Bareilly is illegal and order directing her detention passed by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 605 of 2002 being against law is quashed . The respondent no. 2, Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Bareilly is directed to release the petitioner forth with to go to place of her choice. 11. Copy of this order may be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner within 48 hours on payment of usual charges. Office is also directed to send copy of this order immediately to Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Bareilly for information and compliance. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J. Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2003 Sunil Kumar ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. and another ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri K.M. Misra Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 156 (3)- Magistrate being satisfied with Prima feci case made out- directed the S.O. to Register investigate and submit its report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.- order challenged on the ground that such direction amounts to submit charge sheet at any cost- held - such apprehension base less- in either case the Police has to submit its either final report under section 169 Cr.P.C. or submit charge sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C. Held- Para 2 The relevant provision of Section 173 Cr.P.C. shows that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer Incharge of the police station shall forward the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report. It necessarily does not mean the submission of the charge sheet. The charge sheet shall be submitted only if the case is made out against the accused. If no case is made out, the police has to proceed under section 169 Cr.P.C. and submit a final report. In both the circumstances, the police has to submit a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. It may either be in the form of charge sheet or in the shape of final report. Thus this apprehension, on the part of revisionist, that the order of the Magistrate directing the police to submit a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. would mean the direction to submit a charge sheet, is without basis. (Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Sinha, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to this revision, are that Respondent no. 2 Smt. Paiti filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation of the case. The Magistrate after going through the application found that the application, discloses a cognizable offence and he accordingly directed the concerned police of Police Station Jaswant Nagar, Etawah to register the case, investigate and submit a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. This revision has been filed against the said order, only http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1All] Sunil Kumar V. State of U.P.and another 127 on the point that the Magistrate has directed to submit a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. which will mean that the Magistrate directed the police, police station Jaswant Nagar to submit a charge sheet . The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that only charge sheet can be submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The relevant provision of Section 173 Cr.P.C. shows that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report. It necessarily does not mean the submission of the charge sheet. The charge sheet shall be submitted only if the case is made out against the accused. If no case is made out, the police has to proceed under section 169 Cr.P.C. and submit a final report. In both the circumstances, the police has to submit a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. It may either be in the form of charge sheet or in the shape of final report. Thus this apprehension, on the part of revisionist , that the order of the Magistrate directing the police to submit a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. would mean the direction to submit a charge sheet, is without basis. The impugned order does not necessarily direct the I.O. to submit a charge sheet. The I.O. shall, therefore, be free to submit a charge sheet or a final report after completion of the investigation. 3. With the above observation, the revision is disposed of finally. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20105 of 2000 S.A.K. Roy ...Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.O.V.S. Chauhan Sri Vishnu Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R.G. Padia Sri Prakash Padia Sri K.K. Roy Sri Ramesh Chandra Singh Sri Ram Harsh Sri P.K. Gupta Sri U.K. Uniyal S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- Extraordinary jurisdiction- Petitioner not approached with clean hand- guilty of suppressions material facts not entitled for any relief claimed for- Petition rejected. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the auction notice dated 7.3.2000, Annexure 6 to the writ petition and the auction held in pursuance thereof on 15.3.2000 and all other proceedings in pursuance thereto.