# Shanti Devi /Informant v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 147 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-02-25 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Case No.525 of 2011 - **Bench:** Shri Narayan Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shanti-devi-informant-v-state-of-u-p-41811 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 1 All] Shanti Devi V. State of U.P 147 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 25.02.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. Criminal Misc. Case No.525 of 2011 Shanti Devi ...Petitioner/Informant Versus State of U.P. ...Opp.parties. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482on application U/S 156(3) Magistrate instead of directing the Police to investigate and register the case-treated as complaint case challenged-by treating the application as complaint whether Magistrate committed any illegality-held- 'No'-direction for investigation by Police is pre-cognizance and similar investigation under Section 202 is post cognizance-No illegality in order passed by Magistratepetition dismissed. Held: Para 5 In the light of the aforesaid observations, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in taking cognizance in the matter and proceeding for enquiry. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Case law discussed: 2010 (71) ACC 446; 2007 (59) ACC 739 (DB) (All); 2001 (Suppl.) ACC 957 (SC); Smt. Mona Panwar versus The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others, Criminal Appeal No.298 of 2011, decided on February 02, 2011; 2010 (4) SCC 185 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.) 1. Heard Mr.Murli Manohar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th of May, 2010, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Court No.29, Lucknow on Misc. Application No.58 of 2010, moved under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the learned Magistrate has wrongly converted the application into complaint as the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as provisions of Chapter 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have no co-relationship to each other, they are different and distinct provisions absolutely providing a different procedure. In support of his submission he placed reliance upon several decisions of this court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are referred to hereunder:- (1) Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai & others versus State of Gujrat and others reported in 2009 Cri. L.J.2969. (2) Chandrika Singh versus State of U.P. And others, reported in 2007 (3) JIC 746 (All). (3) Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. & Ors. Versus Tapan Kumar Singh, reported in 2003(2) JIC 126 (SC). (4) Smt.Santosh Kumari versus State of U.P., reported in 2007 (2) JIC 351 (All). 3. On the other hand Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, in support of his argument, has cited the following decisions:- (1) Rajendra Singh versus State of U.P. And others, reported in 2010 (71) ACC 446. 148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 (2) Sukhwasi son of Hulasi versus State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2007 (59) ACC 739 (DB) (All). (3) Joseph Mathuri alias Vishveshwarananda and another versus Swami Sachidanand Harisakshi and another reported in 2001 (Suppl.) ACC 957 (SC). (4) Smt. Mona Panwar versus The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others, Criminal Appeal No.298 of 2011, decided on February 02, 2011. 4. The controversy raised in the matter has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau versus State of Gujarat reported in 2010 (4) SCC 185, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed the opinion as under:- "25.The power to direct an investigation to the police authorities is available to the Magistrate both under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The only difference is the stage at which the said powers may be invoked. As indicated hereinbefore, the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct an investigation by the police authorities is at the pre-cognizance stage while the power to direct a similar investigation under Section 202 is at the post-cognizance stage. 26. The learned Magistrate has chosen to adopt the latter course and has treated the protest petition filed by the appellant as a complaint under Section 200 of the Code and has thereafter proceeded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and kept the matter with himself for an inquiry in the facts of the case. There is nothing irregular in the manner in which the learned Magistrate has proceeded and if at the stage of sub-section (2) of Section 202 the learned Magistrate deems it fit, he may either dismiss the complaint under Section 203 or proceed in terms of Section 193 and commit the case to the Court of Session. 5. In the light of the aforesaid observations, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in taking cognizance in the matter and proceeding for enquiry. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 22.02.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. Criminal Misc. Case No. 654 of 2011 (U/S 482, Cr.P.C.) Mohd. Arif and another ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and another ...Opposite parties Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 319Power of Magistrate to Summon such person even not charge-sheeted-solely depends upon the satisfaction of Magistrate-likelihood of conviction on basis of material/evidence so collect-for rail alongwith other accused-order impugned perfectly justified. Held: Para 9 In the present case on the application moved by the complainant, the learned Magistrate has found it proper and in the interest of justice to summon the petitioners for trial, which shall be treated his satisfaction regarding