# Smt. Kamla Devi v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1213 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-04 - **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kamla-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44164 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Sections 302 (murder) and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison) of the IPC at Police Station Chhatari, District Bulandshahr. Advocate Shri Dheeraj Singh Bohra formally filed his power on behalf of the complainant, which was taken on record by the Court. Paragraph 3 & 4: The Court heard the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned AGA, and thoroughly perused the case records. Paragraph 5: The applicant's counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged late on 25.08.2014 via a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application for an incident that occurred on 16.08.2014. The prosecution alleged that the applic ## Text 8 All. Smt. Kamla Devi Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1213 (2016) 8 ILRA 1213 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Application U/s 482 No.- 22817 Of 2016 Smt. Kamla Devi ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Shri Surendra Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Held - Paragraph 1: The Court heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA, and thoroughly reviewed the case records. The applicant challenged an order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda, which registered her Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application as a complaint case rather than directing the police to register an FIR. Paragraph 2: The Court accepted the learned AGA's contention that the alleged offences took place privately inside the applicant's house and not in a public place or within public view. Consequently, the applicant's attempt to charge the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was deemed legally inapplicable to the situation. Paragraph 3: The Court observed that even if the allegations in the application were assumed to be true, all facts and evidence were already within the applicant's personal knowledge and control. Because there was no hidden evidence requiring a police investigation to uncover, the trial court appropriately treated it as a complaint case. The Court noted that the trial court's order relied on established precedents from both the High Court and the Supreme Court. Paragraph 4 & 5 (Precedent Quote): The Court highlighted the decision in Sukhwasi v. State of U.P. (2007), which emphasizes that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances, such as to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The precedent clarifies that because an alternative remedy of filing a private complaint is readily available, Magistrates are under no legal mandate or obligation to automatically allow every Section 156(3) application. Paragraph 6: The Court concluded that there was no illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error in the trial court's order. Finding no ground to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court dismissed the application. List of Citations:- Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., 2007 (59) ACC 739 1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records. 2. The application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., moved by applicant regarding incident happened inside her house in her presence, was registered as complaint case by impugned order dated 17.5.2016 passed by 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda. This order of registering the application as complaint is under challenge in present proceeding. 3. This contention of learned AGA appears not unacceptable that according to said application alleged overt acts were committed inside house, and not at any public place or in public view, but applicant had tried to implicate accused for offence under section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, which is not applicable in such matter. 4. If facts of application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is taken to be true, in that case also everything relating to fact is within knowledge of applicant and every evidence relating to it is within her control. There is nothing new that can be exposed after investigation. The trial court has passed order of registering aforesaid application as complaint after considering several judgement of this Court and Apex Court, in which one judgement is of this Court namely, 'Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., 2007(59) ACC 739' in which it has been held as under: "Applications under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are coming in torrents. Provisions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. They should not be used unless there is something unusual and extra ordinary like miscarriage of justice which warrants a direction to the Police to register a case. Such application should not be allowed because the law provides them with an alternative remedy of filing a complaint, therefore, recourse should not normally be permitted for availing the provisions of section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate". 5. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore this application is dismissed. ---------- 8 All. Praveen @ Prince Raghav Vs State Of U.P. 1215 (2016) 8 ILRA 1215 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 22996 Of 2016 Praveen @ Prince Raghav ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Opposite party Counsel for the Applicant: R.P.S. Chauhan, Pradeep Chauhan Counsel for the Opposite Party: G.A. Held - Paragraph 1 & 2: The applicant filed a bail application seeking release in Case Crime No. 265 of 2014, under Sections 302 (murder) and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison) of the IPC at Police Station Chhatari, District Bulandshahr. Advocate Shri Dheeraj Singh Bohra formally filed his power on behalf of the complainant, which was taken on record by the Court. Paragraph 3 & 4: The Court heard the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned AGA, and thoroughly perused the case records. Paragraph 5: The applicant's counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged late on 25.08.2014 via a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application for an incident that occurred on 16.08.2014. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and a co-accused took the deceased to an isolated place, forced him to drink alcohol mixed with poison, and then brought him back to his house in a dying condition. While the initial cause of death was unknown, a subsequent viscera report confirmed poisoning. Paragraph 6: The applicant's counsel argued that this poisoning narrative was an afterthought developed through legal consultation. They emphasized that on the very day of the incident, the deceased's father had informed the police that his son had committed suicide at home, based on which the police arrived and conducted the inquest report. Paragraph 7: The counsel highlighted that the subsequent FIR named the deceased's brother, Tota Ram, as an eyewitness who saw the accused forcing the deceased to drink and threatening him. However, in his statement to the police, Tota Ram completely abandoned this theory, stating instead that he and his parents learned of the death while working in the fields and were told that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging, leading them to dial 100. Paragraph 8: The counsel contended that if the family had actually seen the deceased being forcibly poisoned and dumped at home, the father would never have reported it as a suicide. Furthermore, the deceased's sister, Sheetal, was present at the house when the accused allegedly dropped him off on a