# Smt. Kamlesh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 135
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4944 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kamlesh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51581
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973
-
Section 156(3)
-
Application
for
Investigation
-
Revisionist
challenged the order dated 27.09.2022 by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, dismissing her
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for
investigation into the alleged murder of her
daughter, Madhuri, by her husband, Yogendra,
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and in-laws, claiming dowry-related harassment
and suspicious death on 21.03.2022. Revisionist
alleged injuries on Madhuri's body and coercion
by accused to avoid postmortem. Trial court,
based on Circle Officer's report, found Madhuri
died of illness (asthma), no postmortem was
insisted upon by revisionist's family, and
accused transferred land to Madhuri's son,
Manavaya,
with
revisionist
as
guardian.
Application dismissed due to three-month delay
and lack of objection to the report. Court,
applying Anjum Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (3) ADJ
417, and Priyanka Srivastava Vs St. of U.P.,
(2015) 6 SCC 287, held that Section 156(3)
requires judicial discretion, not mandatory
investigation,
and
applications
must
be
supported by affidavit to deter frivolous claims.
No cognizable offence disclosed, no supporting
documents, and delay unexplained. Impugned
order found free of irregularity, illegality, or
impropriety. Revision dismissed. (Paras 9-16)

Revision Dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

3 All. Smt. Kamlesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
135

11. I have gone through the Uttar
Pradesh
Scheduled
Commodities
Distribution Order, 2004 as well as Uttar
Pradesh
Essential
Commodities
(Regulation of Sale and Distribution
Control), Order 2016, paragraph No.22 of
Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities
Distribution Order, 2004 give power of
entry, search and seizure etc to the Food
Officer, competent authority, Senior Supply
Inspector or Supply Inspector to enter,
inspect or break open and search any place
or premises, vehicle or vessel, in which he
has reason to belief that any contravention
of the provisions of this order has been or is
being or is about to be made. He can seize
any scheduled commodities, if he is
satisfied that there has been contravention
of this order. Learned AGA could not point
out any contravention of this distribution
order, 2004 and learned District Magistrate
in order dated 2.7.2022 has categorically
stated that the matter does not comes within
the purview of this control order, 2016.
Therefore, the confiscation and auction of
seized food grains has lost its significance
in view of subsequent developments as the
Investigating Agency has submitted closure
report in criminal case lodged against the
revisionist in respect of seized food grains
under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act. Therefore,
the impugned orders passed by the learned
courts below are not sustainable in view of
foregoing discussion and the same is liable
to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, present criminal
revision stands allowed.

13. The competent authority/ADM
(Administration), Bulandshahr is directed
to release the seized food grains in present
matter from flour mill of the revisionist
(barring 6 stitched sacks containing 3
quintal wheat allegedly allotted to the
Government
Primary
School
and
brought
by
teacher
Mrs.
Neeraj
Goswami at the mill at the time of search
and seizure) after taking a personal bond
and one surety from the revisionist of the
market value of said seized food grains
with undertaking to produce the same or its
equivalent price before the court as and
when required and in case the auction has
been already carried out, the sale proceeds
will be released in favour of the revisionist,
subject to final judgement/order of the
court concerned in the matter.

14. Let copy of this order be
forwarded
to
District
Magistrate,
Bulandshahr for compliance and necessary
action.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 135
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4944 of 2022

Smt. Kamlesh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Gireesh Chandra Dwivedi, Sri Puneet
Kumar Verma, Sri Sanjay Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Puneet Kumar Verma

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973
-
Section 156(3)
-
Application
for
Investigation
-
Revisionist
challenged the order dated 27.09.2022 by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, dismissing her
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for
investigation into the alleged murder of her
daughter, Madhuri, by her husband, Yogendra,
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and in-laws, claiming dowry-related harassment
and suspicious death on 21.03.2022. Revisionist
alleged injuries on Madhuri's body and coercion
by accused to avoid postmortem. Trial court,
based on Circle Officer's report, found Madhuri
died of illness (asthma), no postmortem was
insisted upon by revisionist's family, and
accused transferred land to Madhuri's son,
Manavaya,
with
revisionist
as
guardian.
Application dismissed due to three-month delay
and lack of objection to the report. Court,
applying Anjum Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (3) ADJ
417, and Priyanka Srivastava Vs St. of U.P.,
(2015) 6 SCC 287, held that Section 156(3)
requires judicial discretion, not mandatory
investigation,
and
applications
must
be
supported by affidavit to deter frivolous claims.
No cognizable offence disclosed, no supporting
documents, and delay unexplained. Impugned
order found free of irregularity, illegality, or
impropriety. Revision dismissed. (Paras 9-16)

Revision Dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Anjum Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (3) ADJ 417
(Paras 11, 12, 14)

2. Priyanka Srivastava Vs St. of U.P., (2015) 6
SCC 287 (Paras 13, 14)

3. Lalita Kumari Vs St. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1
(Para 13)

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

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gireesh
Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
revisionist, Sri Puneet Kumar Verma,
learned counsel for the opposite party nos.
2 to 6 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of this instant criminal
revision, the revisionist has assailed the
judgement and order dated 27.09.2022
passed
by
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Firozabad in Misc. Case No.
2128 of 2022 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Yogendra
and Others) u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police
Station- Sirsaganj, District- Firozabad.

3. By the impugned order, the learned
Magistrate has dismissed the application
u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.

4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the revisionist that the learned
Magistrate passed the impugned order
dated 27.09.2022 without considering the
evidence on record and without application
of his mind. Since the impugned order has
been passed against the weight of the
evidence on record, it should be set-aside
and learned Magistrate may be directed to
pass order afresh on the application of the
revisionist.

5. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the
revisionist has filed criminal revision on
false and frivolous ground. Learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate has rightly rejected the
revisionist's application vide order dated
27.09.2022.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
and learned A.G.A. for the State have been
heard. Perused the entire evidence present
on the revision.

7. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, it
has been averred that the revisionist's
daughter, Madhuri, was married to opposite
party no. 2, Yogendra Singh s/o Phoolan
Singh, resident of village- Bhura Bhartara,
Police
Station-
Sirsaganj,
District-
Firozabad, as per Hindu rites and rituals on
06.05.2017. It has also been averred that
after marriage, the deceased and her
husband were peacefully living a married
3 All. Smt. Kamlesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
137
life and one child, namely, Manavaya, was
born out of their wedlock. It has also been
averred that Madhuri, wife of opposite
party no. 2, was suffering from asthma and
for that, she was under treatment of doctor.
During her treatment in the hospital, she
died on 31.03.2022. The opposite party no.
2 and his family members informed about
her death to the revisionist and other family
members. In the cremation ceremony of
Madhuri,
revisionist
and
her
family
members were present. It has also been
averred that after the death of Madhuri, the
revisionist pressurized the opposite parties
to take his son, Manavaya, but the opposite
party no. 2 and his family members agreed
to purchase agricultural land in favour of
Manavaya for securing his future. It has
further been averred that agricultural land
was purchased by opposite party no. 3,
Phoolan Singh, father of Yogendra.

8. The applicant/revisionist, Smt.
Kamlesh, has filed application u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2022 alleging that her
daughter,
Madhuri,
was
married
on
06.05.2017 to accused, Yogendra according
to
hindu
rites
and
rituals.
The
applicant/revisionist
has
spent
about
Rs.8,00,000/- in the marriage of her
daughter. The husband of revisionist's
daughter, Yogendra,
her
father-in-law,
Phoolan Singh, mother-in-law, Smt. Guddi
Devi and brother-in-law (devar), Vineet
were not satisfied with the dowry and they
were asking Madhuri a car from her father.
Averment has made in the application u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C. that after returning from her
matrimonial home to her paternal home,
applicant/revisionist's daughter used to tell
the applicant, her father and her sister,
Sonia about her harassment for dowry by
her husband and in-laws. She used to tell
that they may cause her death in order to
get a car. The applicant/revisionist's
daughter started doing job as a G.N.M. in
Agra where her husband was also working.
He used to often taunt her that she did not
provide a car from her father while she was
staying with her husband at Agra. Her
father-in-law, Phoolan Singh, mother-inlaw, Smt. Guddi Devi and brother-in-law
(devar), Vineet, used to visit her house and
secretly prepared plan to kill her but they
could not succeed. Fifteen days before her
murder, she had visited her paternal home
and informed her mother and sister, Sonia
that her in-laws could kill her anytime for a
car. One Mahima, who was working as
G.N.M. at Agra used to visit her daughter's
house and she started living with Yogendra
and her daughter. On 21.03.2022 at 2:30
o'clock, her son-in-law, Yogendra informed
the applicant on phone that Madhuri was
not able to speak. Then the applicant with
her husband, Pooran Singh and several
other villagers reached Krishna Hospital,
Agra at 4 p.m. Her daughter, Sonia,
informed applicant's husband that Madhuri
had died. Yogendra, his parents, his brother
Vineet and G.N.M. Mahima was also
present there. The applicant/revisionist
observed mark of injury on the person of
Madhuri and swelling on her neck. The
doctor asked for postmortem report and
police was summoned but Yogendra and his
relatives pressurized the police to get the
postmortem
of
Madhuri
done.
They
threatened the applicant/revisionist that if
she tried to complain against them, she will
be killed. Since persons on the side of
applicant/revisionist were less in number,
the accused forcibly carried her deceased
daughter's body and her son to their
village. The applicant/revisionist submitted
written report in the police station about the
incident and made several other efforts for
2-4 days but the police did not register the
criminal case and took no action. The
applicant/revisionist also sent information
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to S.S.P., Firozabad, but no action was
taken.

9. The trial court has given following
reasons for rejecting the application u/s 156
(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/revisionist
:

"न्यायालय द्वारा विनाांक 21-07-22 को
क्षेत्राविकारी वसरसागांज से मामले की जाांच करायी गई क्षेत्राविकारी
वसरसागांज की आख्या पत्रावली पर सांलग्न है उनके द्वारा यह आख्या
िी गई है वक मािुरी की िवबयि खराब रहिी थी और उसका इलाज
चल रहा था मृिका का पोस्टमाटाम वाविनी उसके घरवालों की
सहमवि से नही कराया गया क्योंवक उसकी मृत्यु बीमारी के चलिे
हुई मृिका की मृत्यु श्री कृष्ण हॉवस्पटल में उपचार के िौरान हुई थी।
मृिका का अवन्िम सांस्कार िोनो पक्षों की सहमवि से हुआ था एवां
बाि में आवेविका की माांग पर ववपक्षी फूलन वसांह द्वारा विनाांक 1104-22 को 2604 वगा फीट का प्लाट मानवय उम्र 03 वर्ा के
नाम वकया था माांग के अनुसार सांरवक्षका कमलेर्श कुमारी को बनाया
गया था।

क्षेत्राविकारी वसरसागांज द्वारा जो आख्या प्रेवर्ि की
गई है उस आख्या पर आवेविका की ओर से कोई भी आपवि
िावखल नही की गई है।"

10. From the perusal of the reasons
assigned by the trial court, it transpires that
the death of the applicant/revisionist's
daughter had taken place on 21.03.2022 at
2.30 o'clock but the applicant/revisionist
has submitted application u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. after a delay of about 3 months and
no sufficient reasons have been assigned
for the inordinate delay for submitting the
revision petition. In the enquiry done by
Circle Officer concerned, it was found that
Madhuri,
deceased
daughter
of
the
applicant/revisionist was suffering from
illness and her medical treatment was going
on.
The
family
members
of
the
applicant/revisionist did not insist on
getting the postmortem of the deceased
done, therefore, no postmortem of the
deceased's body was conducted. The
opposite party no. 3, deceased's father-inlaw, Phoolan Singh on 11.04.2022 had
transferred 2604 sq. ft. of land in favour of
deceased's son, Manavaya, aged about 3
years.
In
the
transfer
deed,
applicant/revisionist
was
shown
as
guardian
of
Manavaya.
The
applicant/revisionist did not file any
objection against the report of the Circle
Officer concerned.

11. A coordinate Bench of this Court
in paragraph nos. 4 and 7 of its judgement
in Anjum Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2008
(3) ADJ 417 has held as follows :

"4.
......The
word
'may'
occurring in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is of
utmost
significance.
It
gives
the
magistrate a discretionary power to order
or not for an investigation into the
cognizable
offence
disclosed
in
the
petition. This discretionary power ought to
have been exercised only on reasons and
not on arbitrariness. This discretionary
power has been given to magistrates to
enable them to deal adequately with both
types of the petitions (i) the genuine
petitions containing truthful allegations
about the commission of the cognizable
offence and (2) the petitions having
baseless
or
false
allegations.
The
increasing tendency of the people to file
petitions on false allegations cannot be
ignored.

7. In other cases the magistrate
must apply his own mind and reason while
dealing with the powers under Section
156(3)Cr.P.C. The magistrate must always
keep it in mind that the passing of an
order for investigation in frivolous and
vexatious
petitions
containing
false
allegations is an abuse of the process of
the court. Simultaneously declining to
pass the order for an investigation in
genuine petitions containing truthfulness
3 All. Smt. Kamlesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
139
allegations, is akin to denial of justice to
the needy persons. Both of these situations
are dangerous."

12. In the aforesaid judgement of
Anjum (supra), this Court has issued
following guidelines for passing orders on
application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which are as
follows :

i)
The
investigation
under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be ordered
where the petition does not disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence.

ii) Magistrates are not under any
obligation to order the investigation
invariably in all the petitions, which
disclose the commission of the cognizable
offences.

iii) Where the allegation of the
commission of cognizable offence is
supported by any such documents which
tends to inspire the confidence of the
magistrate regarding the commission of a
cognizable offence, the magistrate must
pass the order for the investigation. Such
documents may include the medical report
or some other cogent material of the like
nature.

iv) Where the allegation, in
itself, is of such a nature which naturally
inspire the confidence of a reasonable
man in its truthfulness the magistrate
must pass the order for an investigation.
Such allegations include the allegation of
rape, outraging the modesty of a woman,
sodomy or the offence under Sections 363
and 366 etc, provided the victim is related
to the petitioner. Such allegations involve
the reputation of the family of the victim
and the petitioner both, hence such
allegations are generally, not levelled
falsely. Hence in such cases also the
magistrates must pass the order for an
investigation.

v) Where the name of the
accused is not known to the petitioner, the
chances of false implication are ruled out.
Hence in such cases also, the investigation
must be ordered,

vi) Where the recovery of the
victim or the victim's corpse is to be made,
the investigation must be ordered. Such as
in the case of allegations of the offences
under Section 363, 366 and 364 IPC. vii)
Where the recovery of any valuable
movable property is to be made and where
there is cognent document to show the
ownership of the petitioner over such
moveable property, the investigation may
be ordered.

viii) Where there is allegation
regarding the commission of a heinous
offence, the investigation must be ordered.
Such as in the case of murder, culpable
homicide not amounting to murder etc.

ix) Where the magistrate is of
the opinion that some more facts which
are in obscurity but are necessary to be
investigated for the just decision of the
case, the magistrate may order for the
investigation
provided
the
petition
discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence.

x) where there is nothing to
convince the magistrate regarding the
truthfulness of the allegation and where
there is nothing to rule out the possibilities
of
the
allegation
being
false,
the
magistrate must avoid to pass an order for
investigation.

13. In the case of Mrs. Priyanka
Srivastava and Another Vs. State of U.P.
and Others, 2015 (6) SCC 287, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has given following
directions to the Magistrate for passing
order u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of
a first information report to the S.O. of the
concerned police station :-
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. At this stage it is seemly to
state that power under Section 156(3)
warrants application of judicial mind. A
court of law is involved. It is not the police
taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of
the Code. A litigant at his own whim
cannot invoke the authority of the
Magistrate. A principled and really grieved
citizen with clean hands must have free
access to invoke the said power. It protects
the citizens but when pervert litigations
takes this route to harass their fellow
citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle
and curb the same.

30. In our considered opinion, a
stage has come in this country where
Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to
be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by
the applicant who seeks the invocation of
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That
apart, in an appropriate case, the learned
Magistrate would be well advised to verify
the truth and also can verify the veracity
of the allegations. This affidavit can make
the applicant more responsible. We are
compelled to say so as such kind of
applications are being filed in a routine
manner without taking any responsibility
whatsoever only to harass certain persons.
That apart, it becomes more disturbing
and alarming when one tries to pick up
people who are passing orders under a
statutory
provision
which
can
be
challenged under the framework of the
said Act or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. But it cannot be
done to take undue advantage in a
criminal
court
as
if
somebody
is
determined to settle the scores.

31. We have already indicated
that there has to be prior applications
under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while
filing a petition under Section 156(3).
Both the aspects should be clearly spelt
out in the application and necessary
documents to that effect shall be filed. The
warrant for giving a direction that an
application under Section 156(3) be
supported by an affidavit is so that the
person making the application should be
conscious and also endeavour to see that
no false affidavit is made. It is because
once an affidavit is found to be false, he
will
be
liable
for
prosecution
in
accordance with law. This will deter him
to casually invoke the authority of the
Magistrate under Section 156(3). That
apart, we have already stated that the
veracity of the same can also be verified
by the learned Magistrate, regard being
had to the nature of allegations of the
case. We are compelled to say so as a
number of cases pertaining to fiscal
sphere,
matrimonial
dispute/family
disputes, commercial offences, medical
negligence cases, corruption cases and the
cases
where
there
is
abnormal
delay/laches
in
initiating
criminal
prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita
Kumari [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the
learned Magistrate would also be aware of
the delay in lodging of the FIR.

14. Considering the reasons assigned
by the trial court in the impugned order for
rejecting the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
in the light of the guidelines issued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Mrs. Priyanka
Srivastava (supra) and the High Court in
Anjum (supra), I do not find any
irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the
impugned order.

15. There is no merit in the criminal
revision and the same is liable to be
dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the criminal revision
is
dismissed.
3 All. Smt. Alka & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
141

17. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial court for necessary
action.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 141
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5185 of 2022

Smt. Alka & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Ram Jee Saxena, Sri Raghuvansh
Chandra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey

Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
- Section 125 - Maintenance -
Revisionists (wife and two minor daughters)
challenged the order dated 13.09.2022 by
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1,
Meerut,
granting
interim
maintenance
of
Rs.3,000/- to revisionist No.1 (wife) and
Rs.2,000/- each to revisionist Nos.2 and 3
(minor daughters) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
seeking
enhancement.
Revisionists
alleged
dowry
harassment
and
abandonment
by
opposite
party
No.2
(husband),
a
pump
operator earning Rs.30,551/- monthly (net
Rs.23,528/-).
Trial
court's
order
lacked
reasoning and failed to consider husband's
income and family status. Relying on Rajnesh Vs
Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, court held that
maintenance
should
prevent
destitution,
consider husband's financial capacity, and be
awarded from the date of application, up to
25% of monthly income. Opposite party No.2's
claim of supporting a heart-patient brother
insufficient to reduce obligation. Impugned
order set aside as erroneous. Maintenance
enhanced to Rs.4,000/- for wife and Rs.3,000/-
each
for
daughters,
totaling
Rs.10,000/-
monthly, payable from date of application, with
arrears in four installments. Revision allowed.
(Paras 13-21)

Revision Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Rajnesh Vs Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Paras 5,
9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

2. Smt. Kuldeep Kaur Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 3
JIC 522 (All) (Para 5)

3. Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316
(Para 13)

4. Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena, (2015) 6
SCC 353 (Para 13)

5. Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh
Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 (Para 13)

6. Kamala Vs M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11
SCC 491 (Para 13)

7. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs District Judge,
Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 (Para 14)

8. Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs Parmvir Parmar,
(2011) 13 SCC 112 (Para 14)

9. Manish Jain Vs Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC
801 (Para 14)

10. Reema Salkan Vs Sumer Singh Salkan,
(2019) 12 SCC 303 (Para 14)

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

By means of the instant criminal
revision, revisionists have assailed the
judgement and order dated 13.09.2022
passed by Additional Principal Judge,
Family Judge Court No.1, Meerut in Case
No.07 of 2022 (Smt. Alka vs. Sohanpal @
Sonu), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. By the impugned order, the trial
Court has granted interim maintenance of