# Sanno Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 90
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanno-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51391
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision , Section 156 (3) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 323, 504, 506 &
354 - The Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 7/8 -
Sexual assault / Punishment for sexual
assault - Magistrate may issue a direction
if the case is made out to proceed
immediately, based on the credibility of
the available information or the interest of
1 All. Sanno Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
91
justice, and if it is deemed appropriate to
conduct the investigation immediately -
Magistrate has to apply his mind to the
allegations in the complaint - Magistrate
not bound to pass order for registration of
F.I.R. in every application u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. .(Para - 9,10)

Application moved by revisionist u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. - for registration of case against opposite
party - dismissed by trial court - ground - one of
accused had registered a criminal case against
father of petitioner and 5 others - Court found
both parties are relatives and live in the same
village - indicating no likelihood of alleged
offence against relatives near their house -
hence revision. (Para -3,4)

HELD:-Trial court did not commit any illegality,
irregularity, or impropriety in passing the
impugned order, and therefore, the criminal
revision is deemed meritless.
(Para-12)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the trafficking in narcotic drugs is a
menace to the society but in the absence of
satisfactory proof, the courts cannot
convict.

36. Thus, from the discussions made
herein above, it is evident that PW-1 who was
admittedly the Sub Inspector at the relevant
time was not authorized to act under Section
42 of the NDPS Act as the notification
amending
Rule
77
of
1986
Rules
empowering the Sub Inspector of U.P. Police
to act and exercise the powers under Section
42 of the Act came into effect on 17.10.1989.
The arrest, search and seizure admittedly was
prior to that. Precisely on 03.06.1986, PW-1
was not competent to act and exercise powers
under Section 42 of the Act. The act of PW-2
was ultra-virus and accordingly, the entire
entry, search, seizure and arrest made by PW1 and the team was in defiance of Section 42
of the Act and as such has vitiated the entire
investigation.

37. Likewise, there is total noncompliance of Section 42 sub section (2) of
1985 Act. PW-1 has not reduced information
received by him in writing, although, there
was ample time as the information was
received according to the statement of PW-1
at 11 am and the raid was conducted at 1:05
pm. Thus, there was ample opportunity and
the time with PW-1 to record information in
writing, which he did not do so and therefore,
in view of the judgments referred to herein
above, there is total non-compliance of
Section 42 of 1985 Act and thus, in view of
the Constitution Bench Judgment of Karnail
Singh (supra), the entire investigation is
vitiated. Lastly, the link evidence is also
missing. The prosecution has failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt.

38. In view of the discussion made
herein above, the appeals are allowed and
the judgment dated 19.4.1994 (supra) is set
aside. The appellants are acquitted of the
charges levelled against them. They are on
bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.

39. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the District Judge, Barabaki along with the
lower court's record.

A copy of the judgment be also
sent to the concerned Superintendent, Jail,
immediately.

40. A copy of this order be also placed
on the record of each of the connected
appeals.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 90
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2023

Sanno ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Pradeep Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Hemant Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision , Section 156 (3) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 323, 504, 506 &
354 - The Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 7/8 -
Sexual assault / Punishment for sexual
assault - Magistrate may issue a direction
if the case is made out to proceed
immediately, based on the credibility of
the available information or the interest of
1 All. Sanno Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
91
justice, and if it is deemed appropriate to
conduct the investigation immediately -
Magistrate has to apply his mind to the
allegations in the complaint - Magistrate
not bound to pass order for registration of
F.I.R. in every application u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. .(Para - 9,10)

Application moved by revisionist u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. - for registration of case against opposite
party - dismissed by trial court - ground - one of
accused had registered a criminal case against
father of petitioner and 5 others - Court found
both parties are relatives and live in the same
village - indicating no likelihood of alleged
offence against relatives near their house -
hence revision. (Para -3,4)

HELD:-Trial court did not commit any illegality,
irregularity, or impropriety in passing the
impugned order, and therefore, the criminal
revision is deemed meritless.
(Para-12)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. & ors. , 2014 2
SCC 1

2. Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of Guj.
, (2015) 6 SCC 439

3. Rambabu Gupta Vs St. of U.P., 2001 Cr.L.J.
3363

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,
J.)

Heard Sri Pradeep Yadav, learned
counsel for the revisionist, Sri Hemant
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed against the impugned order dated
21.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Azamgarh, in Criminal
Misc. Case No. 39 of 2022 (Sanno Vs.
Shahnawaz and others) u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.

3. By the impugned order, the trial
court dismissed the application of the
revisionist
u/s
156
(3)
Cr.P.C.
for
registration of case against opposite party
nos. 2, 3 and 4.

4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the revisionist that from the
averments made in the application u/s 156
(3) Cr.P.C., a cognizable offence was made
out against the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and
4 but the trial court without any legal
ground
rejected
her
application
for
registration
of
a
criminal
case
and
investigation thereof by the S.O. of the
concerned police station. It has next been
submitted that the trial court rejected the
application merely on the ground that one
of the accused, namely, Ansar, had
registered a criminal case bearing Case
Crime No. 125 of 2022 u/s 34, 323, 504,
506, 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police
Station- Atrauliya, District- Azamgarh,
against the father of the petitioner, Noorul
Huda Kayim and 5 others. It has also been
submitted that the application u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. cannot be dismissed merely on the
presumption that it was registered to take
revenge for the first information report
previously registered by the opposite party
nos. 2 to 4 against revisionist's father.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has
placed reliance on the judgement of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita
Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & Others, 2014
2 SCC 1.

5. Per contra, Sri Hemant Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the opposite
party nos. 2, 3 and 4 has submitted that the
trial court has passed the impugned order
after considering the facts in the light of the
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding registration of first information
report. It has been next submitted that the
date of occurrence of the alleged offence in
the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is
01.07.2022 whereas for the first time, the
revisionist/applicant gave application to
S.S.P., Azamgarh on 16.07.2022 after a gap
of 16 days and no explanation has been
given for the aforesaid delay. In the
application, it has not been mentioned that
the applicant earlier tried to get her first
information report registered by submitting
application to the S.O. of concerned police
station. It has also been submitted that the
Class VIII examination marksheet filed by
the revisionist which is issued by Madarsa
Islamia Faizan-I-Raza does not bear the
stamp of the Principal of the school. It has
also been submitted that the revisionist
resides in District- Azamgarh. No reason
has been given why marksheet has been
issued from school situated in District-
Ambedkar Nagar in proof of her date of
birth.

6. The averments made in application
u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist,
Sanno, in brief is that applicant, Sanno,
daughter of Noorul Huda Kayim, resident
of village- Sakin Saraiya Ratnawa, Police
Station- Atrauliya, District- Azamgarh, who
has passed Class- VIII in 2022, was on
01.07.2022 at 8 p.m. going towards west of
her house to Siwan. Her neighbour,
opposite party no. 2, Shahnawaz, was
sitting concealing himself for ambush. As
soon as revisionist/applicant reached there,
he held her hands and forcibly put her on
the ground and removed her clothes. He
started making obscene gestures with her.
On hue and cry being raised by the
revisionist/applicant, her mother, Avtaran,
reached there. Then accused, Shahnawaz,
fled from the place of occurrence. The
revisionist's mother, Avtaran and her
grandfather, Wazir, visited the house of
Shahnawaz to complain against him to his
parents. There opposite party nos. 3 and 4,
namely, Ansar and Takdirun, threatened
revisionist's mother and her grandfather
that if they again dared to complain against
their son, Shahnawaz, they will kill them.

7. The ruling of Lalita Kumari
(supra) cited by the revisionist relates to
registration of first information report u/s
154 (1) Cr.P.C. on the application of the
informant by the S.O. In the aforesaid case
of Lalita Kumari (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has given requirements for
registration of first information report by
the S.O. of concerned police station. In this
case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not given
directions to the Magistrate regarding
passing of the order on the application u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court
has
expressed
the
desirability
of
registration of first information report u/s
154 (1) Cr.P.C. by the S.O. on the
application of the applicant/informant. The
Hon'ble Apex Court had issued following
guidelines
for
registration
of
first
information report by the S.O. concerned
u/s 154 (1) Cr.P.C. :-

49. Consequently, the condition
that is sine qua non for recording an FIR
under Section 154 of the Code is that there
must be information and that information
must disclose a cognizable offence. If any
information disclosing a cognizable offence
is led before an officer in charge of the
police station satisfying the requirement of
Section 154(1), the said police officer has
no other option except to enter the
substance thereof in the prescribed form,
that is to say, to register a case on the basis
of such information. The provision of
Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and
1 All. Sanno Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
93
the officer concerned is duty-bound to
register
the
case
on
the
basis
of
information
disclosing
a
cognizable
offence. Thus, the plain words of Section
154(1) of the Code have to be given their
literal meaning.

53. Investigation of offences and
prosecution of offenders are the duties of
the State. For "cognizable offences", a
duty has been cast upon the police to
register FIR and to conduct investigation
except as otherwise permitted specifically
under Section 157 of the Code. If a
discretion, option or latitude is allowed
to the police in the matter of registration
of FIRs, it can have serious consequences
on the public order situation and can also
adversely affect the rights of the victims
including violating their fundamental
right to equality.

8. Admittedly, the impugned order
was passed by Special Judge (POCSO
Act), Azamgarh, on the application u/s
156
(3)
Cr.P.C.
submitted
by
the
revisionist/applicant.
Admittedly,
revisionist and opposite party nos. 2 to 4
are relatives and are residents of the same
village. From the perusal of the record, it
transpires that on 01.04.2022, opposite
party no. 3, Ansar, had lodged a first
information report bearing Case Crime
No. 125 of 2022 u/s 34, 323, 504, 506,
354 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police
Station- Atrauliya, District- Azamgarh,
against the father of the petitioner,
Noorul Huda Kayim and 5 other persons
in
which
after
investigation,
the
Investigating
Officer
has
submitted
charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections
and trial is pending in the concerned
court.

9. In Ramdev Food Products Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC
439, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that :-

"The direction u/s 156 (3) is to be
issued only after application of mind by the
Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not
take cognizance and does not find it
necessary to postpone instance of process
and finds a case made out to proceed
forthwith,
direction
under
the
said
provision is issued. In other words, where
on account of credibility of information
available, or weighing the interest of justice
it is considered appropriate to straightaway
direct investigation, such a direction is
issued. In other words, where on account of
credibility of information available, or
weighing the interest of justice it is
considered appropriate to straightaway
direct investigation, such a direction is
issued."

10. In case of Rambabu Gupta Vs.
State of U.P., 2001 Cr.L.J. 3363, the Full
Bench of the Allahabad High Court has
held that the Magistrate has to apply his
mind to the allegations in the complaint. He
may at once take cognizance or order that
the case be sent to the police station for
being registered and be investigated. The
order of the Magistrate has necessarily to
indicate the application of mind. Thus,
Magistrate is not bound to pass order for
registration of F.I.R. in every application
u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

11. In its impugned order, the trial
court
has
given
reasons
that
revisionist/applicant
has
presented
application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in July, 2022
against opposite party nos. 2 to 4 as a
counterblast
to
the
aforesaid
first
information report lodged by the opposite
party no. 3, Ansar on 01.04.2023 against
revisionist's father, Noorul Huda and 5
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others in which after investigation, chargesheet has been filed. The trial court has also
mentioned that both parties are relatives
and live in the same village. There is no
likelihood of opposite party nos. 2 to 4
committing alleged offence against their
relatives near their house.

12.

Considering
the
impugned
judgement and facts and circumstances of
the case in the light of the law propounded
by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding
registration of first information report u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Court is of the view
that while passing the impugned order, the
trial court has not committed any illegality,
irregularity or impropriety. There is no
merit in the criminal revision and the same
is liable to be dismissed.

13.

The
criminal
revision
is
dismissed, accordingly.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial court for necessary
action.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 94
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 467 of 2023

State of U.P. ...Revisionist
Versus
M/S Khetan Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd.
Jhansi ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
G.A., Ram Asarey Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397(1) /401 -
Revision - Section 397(2) - powers of
revision conferred by sub- section (1)
shall not be exercised in relation to any
interlocutory order passed in any appeal,
inquiry, trial or other proceeding , U.P.
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section
6-A - Confiscation of essential commodity
- Additional District Magistrate declined to
release the seized goods of the respondent -
which order has been reversed in appeal. (Para
- 9)

HELD:-Order of seizure or release of goods
does not affect the case's merits and is an
interlocutory order. Revisions filed against an
order of seizure under Section 6-A of the
Essential Commodities Act or an appellate order
reversing the order would not be maintainable
under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C.
(Para - 9)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava,
the
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of
U.P. and Sri Ram Asarey Verma, the learned
counsel for the respondent.

2. Sri Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, the
District Agriculture Officer, Lakhimpur
Kheri is also present in compliance of the
order dated 22.12.2023, passed by this court.

3. The instant revision has been filed
by the State under Section 397 (1), 401 of
Cr.P.C. assailing the validity of the order
dated
03.04.2023,
passed
by
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Court
No.4/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lakhimpur
Kheri in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2023.

4. The aforesaid appeal was filed
against an order dated 06.03.2023, passed