# Smt. Seeta Devi Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 34
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 312 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-seeta-devi-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51636
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 397, 401 & 156(3) -
Revision
against
order
dated
21.12.2023
rejecting application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. - Allegations of rape and assault by
opposite parties on revisionist's minor daughter
- Held, trial court rightly rejected application
due
to
unnatural
circumstances,
lack
of
witnesses, absence of medico-legal evidence,
and significant delay in reporting (two months)
without
explanation
-
Allegations
appear
motivated to counter FIR against revisionist's
son under Section 306 IPC - Judicial mind
applied as per Priyanka Srivastava guidelines -
No illegality in trial court's order. (Para 7-10)

Revision dismissed.

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judging the validity of the order passed by
the learned Special Judge directing framing
of charges have not been applied. The
impugned order is, therefore, clearly
erroneous in law and is liable to be set
aside."

18. In State of M.P. v. Deepak
(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated the well established principle of
law that: -

"16. It was also noted that at the
stage of framing of charges, the Court has
to consider the material only with a view to
find out if there is a ground for
"presuming"
that
the
accused
had
committed the offence"

19. When we examine the facts of the
present case in light of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
mentioned cases, it appears that the
categorical assertions made by the deceased
in his suicide note and in the video message
recorded by him immediately before
committing suicide, which have been
referred to above, a case for trial of the
applicant for the offence under Section 306
I.P.C. is made out, as there is no ground for
presuming that she has not committed the
offence.

20. There is no error in the impugned
order which may call for interference by
this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction.

21. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the revision is dismissed at the
admission stage.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 34
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 312 of 2024

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

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ambika Prasad Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 397, 401 & 156(3) -
Revision
against
order
dated
21.12.2023
rejecting application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. - Allegations of rape and assault by
opposite parties on revisionist's minor daughter
- Held, trial court rightly rejected application
due
to
unnatural
circumstances,
lack
of
witnesses, absence of medico-legal evidence,
and significant delay in reporting (two months)
without
explanation
-
Allegations
appear
motivated to counter FIR against revisionist's
son under Section 306 IPC - Judicial mind
applied as per Priyanka Srivastava guidelines -
No illegality in trial court's order. (Para 7-10)

Revision dismissed.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Priyanka Srivastava Vs St. of U.P., (2015) 6
SCC 287

2. Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar
Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1

3. Anju Chaudhary Vs St. of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC
384

4. Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs St. of
Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439

5. Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs Ajay Arora, (2013) 10
SCC
581
3 All. Smt. Seeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
35
6. Sakiri Vasu Vs St. of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409

7. Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs St. of Mah., (2002) 2
SCC 135

8. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335

9. Madhu Bala Vs Suresh Kumar, (1997) 8 SCC
476

10. Ram Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 15 SCC
149

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

1. Heard Shri Ambika Prasad Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the State.

2. By means of this instant revision
filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the
revisionist has challenged the validity of
the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the
Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional
District and Session Judge, Lucknow in
Criminal Misc. Case No.1268 of 2023
whereby an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has
been rejected. In the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the revisionist had
alleged that younger brother of opposite
party No.6 was having a love affair with a
girl. However, marriage of that girl was
settled with some other person, due to
which the younger brother of opposite
party No.6 had committed suicide in the
month of June' 2023. An FIR was lodged in
this regard on 01.07.2023 against the
complainant's son Anil Kumar Kanojia. On
03.07.2023, the opposite party Nos.6, 7 & 8
entered the revisionist's house at about
04:30 PM, her 15 years old daughter was
alone in the house, the aforesaid persons
started searching for the revisionist's son
Anil Kumar Kanojia and when her
daughter objected against it, the opposite
party No.6 molested and raped her and the
opposite party Nos.7 & 8 had beaten her
and had bitten on her cheeks. A complaint
in this regard was given to the police on
03.07.2023 itself and thereafter complaint
were sent to various authorities through
registered post on 30.08.2023.

3.
 The
trial
court
took
into
consideration the facts averred in the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
and noted that although the revisionist has
alleged that she had given information of
the incident at the police station on
03.07.2023 but information was given to
the police Commissioner through registered
post only on 30.08.2023. On 01.07.2023, a
case was lodged against the complainant's
son for abetting the brother of opposite
party Nos.6, 7 & 8 to commit suicide. The
allegation of commission of rape merely
two days thereafter appears to be wholly
unnatural. There are no witnesses of the
alleged incident. There is no medico-legal
examination
report
to
support
the
allegation. Relying upon the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Priyanka Srivastava Versus State of
U.P.: 2015 (6) SCC 287, the trial Court
rejected the application under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C.

4. While challenging the validity of
the order rejecting the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the learned counsel
for the revisionist has placed reliance upon
a Constitution Bench judgment in the case
of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of
Uttar Pradesh: (2014) 2 SCC Page 1,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
held that :-

" Conclusion/Directions
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

120. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we hold:

120.1. The registration of FIR is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code,
if the information discloses commission of
a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

120.2. If the information received
does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted only
to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, the
FIR must be registered. In cases where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
complaint, a copy of the entry of such
closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding
further.

120.4. The police officer cannot
avoid his duty of registering offence if
cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must
be taken against erring officers who do not
register the FIR if information received by
him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5. The scope of preliminary
inquiry is not to verify the veracity or
otherwise of the information received but
only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6. As to what type and in
which cases preliminary inquiry is to be
conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category
of cases in which preliminary inquiry may
be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family
disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e)
Cases
where
there
is
abnormal
delay/laches
in
initiating
criminal prosecution, for example, over 3
months' delay in reporting the matter
without
satisfactorily
explaining
the
reasons for delay.

The
aforesaid
are
only
illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry.

120.7.
While
ensuring
and
protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary inquiry should
be made time-bound and in any case it
should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such
delay and the causes of it must be reflected
in the General Diary entry.

120.8.
Since
the
General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the
record of gall information received in a
police
station,
we
direct
that
all
information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or
leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily
and meticulously reflected in the said diary
and the decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry
must
also
be
reflected,
as
mentioned above."

5. However, the judgment in Lalita
Kumari (Supra) was considered and
explained in a later decision in Priyanka
Srivastava (Supra), and the relevant
passage
of
the
judgment
is
being
reproduced below: -

"26. At this stage, we may
usefully refer to what the Constitution
Bench has to say in Lalita Kumari v. State
of U.P. in this regard. The larger Bench had
posed the following two questions:

"(i) Whether the immediate nonregistration of FIR leads to scope for
manipulation by the police which affects
the right of the victim/complainant to have
3 All. Smt. Seeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
37
a complaint immediately investigated upon
allegations being made; and

(ii) Whether in cases where the
complaint/information does not clearly
disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence but the FIR is compulsorily
registered then does it infringe the rights of
an accused."

Answering the questions posed,
the larger Bench opined thus:

"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
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.
***

72. It is thus unequivocally clear
that registration of FIR is mandatory and
also that it is to be recorded in the FIR
book by giving a unique annual number to
each FIR to enable strict tracking of each
and every registered FIR by the superior
police officers as well as by the competent
court to which copies of each FIR are
required to be sent.
***

111. ... the Code gives power to
the police to close a matter both before and
after investigation. A police officer can
foreclose an FIR before an investigation
under Section 157 of the Code, if it appears
to him that there is no sufficient ground to
investigate the same. The section itself
states that a police officer can start
investigation when he has 'reason to
suspect the commission of an offence'.
Therefore, the requirements of launching an
investigation under Section 157 of the Code
are higher than the requirement under
Section 154 of the Code. The police officer
can also, in a given case, investigate the
matter and then file a final report under
Section 173 of the Code seeking closure of
the matter. Therefore, the police is not
liable to launch an investigation in every
FIR which is mandatorily registered on
receiving
information
relating
to
commission of a cognizable offence.
***

115. Although, we, in unequivocal
terms, hold that Section 154 of the Code
postulates the mandatory registration of
FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offences,
yet,
there
may
be
instances
where
preliminary inquiry may be required owing
to the change in genesis and novelty of
crimes with the passage of time. One such
instance is in the case of allegations
relating to medical negligence on the part
of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable
to prosecute a medical professional only on
the basis of the allegations in the
complaint."
emphasis in original)

After so stating the Constitution
Bench proceeded to state that where a
preliminary enquiry is necessary, it is not
for
the
purpose
for
verification
or
otherwise of the information received but
only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence. After laying
down so, the larger Bench proceeded to
state:

"120.6. As to what type and in
which cases preliminary inquiry is to be
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category
of cases in which preliminary inquiry may
be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family
disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e)
Cases
where
there
is
abnormal
delay/laches
in
initiating
criminal prosecution, for example, over 3
months' delay in reporting the matter
without
satisfactorily
explaining
the
reasons for delay.

The
aforesaid
are
only
illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry.

120.7.
While
ensuring
and
protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary inquiry should
be made time-bound and in any case it
should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such
delay and the causes of it must be reflected
in the general diary entry."

We have referred to the aforesaid
pronouncement for the purpose that in
certain circumstances the police is also
required to hold a preliminary enquiry
whether any cognizable offence is made out
or not."

6. After considering the dictum laid
down in Lalita Kumari (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Priyanka
Srivastava (Supra) that: -

"27. Regard being had to the
aforesaid enunciation of law, it needs to be
reiterated that the learned Magistrate has
to remain vigilant with regard to the
allegations made and the nature of
allegations and not to issue directions
without proper application of mind. He
has also to bear in mind that sending the
matter would be conducive to justice and
then he may pass the requisite order.
* * *

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."
(Emphasis supplied)

7. When we examine the facts of the
present case in light of the law laid down in
Priyanka Srivastava (Supra), it appears
that the revisionist had alleged in the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,
that Amit Kumar Kanaujia, a younger
brother of opposite party No.6, was having
a love affair with a girl named Manisha.
However, marriage of that girl was settled
with some other person, due to which
reason
Amit
Kumar
Kanaujia
had
committed suicide and an FIR was lodged
in this regard on 01.07.2023 against the
complainant's son Anil Kumar Kanojia. On
03.07.2023, the opposite party Nos.6, 7 & 8
entered the revisionist's house at about
04:30 p.m., her 15 years old daughter was
alone in the house, the aforesaid persons
started searching for the revisionist's son
Anil Kumar Kanojia and when her
daughter objected against it, the opposite
party No.6 molested her and raped her by
putting a finger in her vagina and
threatened to tear away her vagina and the
opposite party Nos.7 & 8 had beaten her
3 All. Brijendra Swaroop Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
39
and had bitten on her cheeks. It is alleged
in the application that a complaint in this
regard was given to the police on
03.07.2023, regarding which there is no
documentary proof and the complaint to
various authorities was sent through
registered post only on 30.08.2023, i.e.
about two months after the alleged incident.

8. The trial Court has considered the
facts stated in the complaint in a judicial
manner and has come to a conclusion that it
is wholly unnatural that the persons, whose
brother had committed suicide merely two
days ago, will go to the accused house and
commit a sexual offence. There are no
witnesses of the alleged incident. There is
no medical examination report to support
the allegation. There are no witnesses of the
incident. In these circumstances, the
Magistrate has rightly come to a conclusion
that it appears that the complainant has
been lodged in order to put pressure on the
applicants in the case under Section 306
I.P.C. lodged against the complainant's son
by using her minor daughter as a victim in
an attempt to protect the complainant's son.

9. There appears to be no illegality in
the aforesaid well reasoned order dated
21.12.2013 passed by the Special Judge
warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

10. The revision lack merit and the
same is hereby dismissed at the admission
stage.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 39
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.
Criminal Revision No. 316 of 2023

Brijendra Swaroop Jaiswal ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Raj Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Nagendra Nath Mishra, Sri
Nityanand Mishra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 &
409 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 227, 239 & 240 - Revisionist
challenged dismissal of discharge application by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal
Case No. 5289 of 2017 for alleged financial
irregularities, forgery, and criminal breach of
trust as Head Master of a school. Court held: (1)
Allegations of tampering, trespass, abuse, and
misplacement of documents lacked specificity;
no
particular
forged
document
or
misappropriated property identified. (2) Signing
attendance register during suspension was
misconduct, not an offence under IPC. (3)
Magistrate's
order
dismissing
discharge
application lacked reasoned analysis, failing to
address grounds raised or specify material
evidence supporting charges, violating principles
under Section 239 Cr.P.C. (4) Right to seek
discharge is valuable; trial court must provide
reasoned order (St. By S.P. Through SPE CBI Vs
Uttamchand Bohra, (2021) Criminal Appeal No.
1590; Central Bureau of Investigation Vs K.
Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512). Revision
allowed; impugned order set aside; matter
remanded to Magistrate for fresh consideration
of discharge application with reasoned order.
(Paras 7-8, 15-17)
Revision Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

1. St. By S.P. Through SPE CBI Vs Uttamchand
Bohra, Criminal Appeal No. 1590 of 2021 (Para
7, 8)

2. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs K.
Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512 (Para 7)