# Revisionist v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 230 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-10-30 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No.6049 of 2006 - **Bench:** Vinod Prasad - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40839 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri A.K. Singh Sri C.K. Rai S.C. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act 1982 read with U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules 1998-Adjustment of earlier selected candidate against unadvertised vacancy whether possible?-held-'No'-decision of single Judge in case of Savita Gupta-overruled. ## Text 230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007 filed on 3.10.2002 and-the cause of action, as admitted by the defendant, accrued on 31.7.2004, i.e., after the filing of the written statement. Clear1y the said- counter claim could not be filed in the present proceedings in view of the mandatory provision of Order 8 Rule 6Aof the C.P.C. 6. In Jag Mohan Chawla and another vs. Dera Radha Swani Satsang and others, A.I.R. 1996 SC 2222 the Supreme Court held- "The only limitation is that the cause of action should arise before the time fixed for filing the written statement expires. The defendant may set up a cause of action which has accrued to him even after the institution of the suit." 7. In Smt. Shanti Rani Das Dewanjee vs. Dinesh Chandra Day (dead) By Lrs., AIR 1997 SC 3985, the Supreme Court held that the cause of action should arise before or after the filing of the suit and such cause of action should arise before or after the filing of the suit and such cause of action could continue upto the date of the filing of the written statement or extended date of the filing of the written statement. Similar view was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Mahendra Kumar and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1395. 8. In view of the consistent pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this issue, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The amendment application of the defendant is consequently rejected. Petition Allowed. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J. Criminal Revision No.6049 of 2006 Sitari Begam ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. and another...Respondent Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Devendra Saini Counsel for the Respondent: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 156(3)-Rejection of application by Magistrate-in where cognizable offence of gravious nature disclosed-Magistrate to follow the mandate of law-victim may not file complaint, for so many reasonsheld-Magistrate committed manifest error of law in not directing the police to register and investigate the case. Held: Para 2 The Judicial Magistrate-Ist Saharnpur without looking into the law laid down by the Apex Court in state of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others;1992 SCC (Criminal) 426 and in other similar judgments of the Apex Court has passed the impugned order on 16/10/2006 in the said Misc. Application No. 54 of 2006, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist Sitari Begam, which cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is recommended back to him decide the application afresh in accordance with law. Case law discussed: 1992 SCC (Criminal)-426 1 All] Sitari Begam V. State of U.P. 231 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. 2. The application being Misc. Application No. 54 of 2006 filed by the revisionist Sitari Begam, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosed commission of a cognizable offence of grievous nature under section 325 I.P.C. as well as under section 308 I.P.C. Since there was a fracture of the head bone found on the head of Kumar Gulista. Moreover, the accused persons have entered into the house of the revisionist and there they have assaulted her, which is also a cognizable offence. Judicial Magistrate-I, Saharanpur committed manifest error of law in not directing the police to follow the mandate of law to exercise their plenary power of investigation as was prayed by the revisionist through the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is not the law that if an application under Section 156(3) is filed disclosing commission of cognizable offences the Magistrate should leave the police to act arbitrarily by not directing to register the F.I.R. The Magistrate concerned was expected to follow the mandate of law and direct the police to register the F.I.R. In this case the Magistrate by not directing the police to register the F.I.R. of the cognizable offence committed manifest error of law and did not exercise his jurisdiction properly in law. The victim never wanted to file a complaint and there may be thousands of reasons for the same including the fact that the accused are musclemen and the victim was not in position to bring the witness to the court of law to support her version. The Judicial Magistrate-Ist Saharnpur without looking into the law laid down by the Apex Court in state of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others; 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426 and in other similar judgments of the Apex Court has passed the impugned order on 16/10/2006 in the said Misc. Application No. 54 of 2006, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist Sitari Begam, which cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is recommended back to him decide the application afresh in accordance with law. 3. With the aforesaid direction revision is allowed at the admission stage. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46861 of 2005 Satish Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.C. Shukla Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh Sri Pradeep Verma Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.K. Singh Sri C.K. Rai S.C. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act 1982 read with U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules 1998-Adjustment of earlier selected candidate against unadvertised vacancy whether possible?-held-'No'-decision of single Judge in case of Savita Gupta-overruled.