# Tribhuvan Nath and others v. State of U.P. and another Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 630
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-07-19
- **Bench:** R.N.Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tribhuvan-nath-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-opp-parties-40975
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Code of criminal procedure -Discharge
by Magistrate-offence u/s 420,467,468prima facie made out-sufficient material
to protect-discharge order by Magistrate
illegal-interference by District Judge-
held- perfect and justified order.

Held: Para 9

In view of the above discussion and from
the perusal of the material collected by
the I.O. it appears that prima facie

## Text

630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007

9. In view of the above discussion,
the appeal is allowed in part to the limited
extent. The matter is remanded back to
the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Irrigation
Department,
Azamgarh
to
determine the amount of compensation
towards the rent/damages to which the
appellant may be entitled for the use of
property as claimed prior to the date of
acquisition. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer will determine the dispute if so
raised
after
notice
to
thc
State
Government. The appeal with regard to
the rest is dismissed.

10. In the result appeal is allowed in
part, as indicated above. No order as to
costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.N.MISRA, J.

Crl. Misc. Application No. 15729 of 2007.

Tribhuvan Nath and others ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri. Rajendra Kumar

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure -Section 156
(3) - Application for direction to S.O.
concern
for
Registration
of
case-
Magistrate treated the application as
complaint by recording statements under
section 200 and 202- Held - proper- call
for no interference.

Held: Para 4

In view of above legal positions, I am of
the view that learned Magistrate has
exercised the correct option by treating
the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
as
complaint.
The
learned
Magistrate recorded the statement of the
complainant and made suitable inquiry
under section 202 Cr.P.C. and found a
prima facie case against the applicant
and
summoned
them
for
trail.
No
illegality in order appears.
Case law discussed:
2007(1) JIC 244
ALJ 2007 221, 2007 (1) JIC 44
2001 (3) Crimes 384
JT 2001 (2) SC. 81, 2001 (43) ACC- 50
1995 (2) JIC 1523
2007 (5) ADJ 560

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.N. Misra, J.)

1. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant
for quashing the order dated 16.4.2007
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ghazipur in criminal case no. 493 of
2006, by which the applicants have been
summoned for trial for the offence
punishable under Sections 406, 498A,
504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, police station Kotwali, district
Ghazipur.

2. I have heard Shri Rajendra
Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants
and learned AGA for the State and
perused the file.

3. The main point argued in this case
by the learned counsel for the applicants
is
that
the
magistrate
treated
the
application under Section 156 (3) as
complaint and proceeded under Section
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and according to him
that procedure was illegal because the
said application cannot be treated as
complaint. He has cited the case of
2 All] Tribhuvan Nath and others V. State of U.P. and another
631
Braham Singh Saini Vs. State of U.P.
2007 (l)JIC 244 in which Hon. Vinod
Prasad, J. of this High Court has taken a
view that such application cannot be
treated as complaint. He has also cited the
case of Masuman Vs. State of U.P. and
another ALJ 2007 (1) 221, in which the
same Hon'ble Judge has taken the same
view. But the legal position to my mind is
different. In the case of Shiv Narain
Jaiswal and others Vs. State of U.P. and
another 2007 (1) JIC 44, Hon'ble R.K.
Rastogi, J. of this High Court has also
taken a different view. In the case of
Joseph Mathuri @ Vishveshwarananda
and another Vs. Swami Sachidanand
Harisakshi and another 2001 (3) Crimes
384 (SC), the Hon' ble Apex Court has
also taken a contrary view. In criminal
misc. application no. 7484 of 2004
Mohan Shukla and others Vs. State of
U.P. and another, Hon. Amar Saran, J.
has also taken view that the application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C can be
treated
as
complaint.
In
Criminal
Revision No.1667 of 2006 Chandrika
Singh Vs. State of U.P. Hon. Shiv
Charan, J. has sought to distinguish the
case of Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of
MP, JT 2001 (2) SC page 81. The Full
Court decision in the case of Ram Babu
Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2001
(43) ACC 50 has also clarified the matter
and it is evident that the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as
complaint. Thus, the law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Surajmal Vs. State 1995 (2) JIC 1523
does not lay down the correct law. The
decision taken by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,
J. in the Masuman 's case has been
referred to the larger Bench by Hon'ble
Mr. JusticeR.K.Rastogi in criminal Misc.
Application No. 9297 of 2007, Sukhwasi
Vs. State of U.P. 2007 (5) ADJ, 560.

4. In view of above legal positions, I
am of the view that learned Magistrate
has exercised the correct option by
treating the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint. The learned
Magistrate recorded the statement of the
complainant and made suitable inquiry
under section 202 Cr.P.C. and found a
prima facie case against the applicant and
summoned them for trail. No illegality in
order appears.

The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1031 of 2007

Virendra Mishra and others ..Revisionists
Versus.
State of U.P. & another ..Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri. G.P. Dikshit

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Ramanand Pandey
Sri Pradeep Narayan Pandey
A.G.A.

Code of criminal procedure -Discharge
by Magistrate-offence u/s 420,467,468prima facie made out-sufficient material
to protect-discharge order by Magistrate
illegal-interference by District Judge-
held- perfect and justified order.

Held: Para 9

In view of the above discussion and from
the perusal of the material collected by
the I.O. it appears that prima facie