# Vinod Kumar Sahu v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 348
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-02-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 4542 of 2014
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-kumar-sahu-v-state-of-u-p-42812
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-482-Application against rejection of
application under section 153(3) Cr.P.C.-on
ground if amount of bribery given by father
of applicant-who only could maintain
application-held-misconceived-if allegation
found true-can either way would be very
serious impact-if bribery demanded by
judicial officer or by an advocate for his
own benefit-order quashed-being nonest
direction to pass fresh order in light of
observation made above.

Held: Para-7
Ordinarily this court does not entertain
the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. which
assails the validity of refusal done by the
Magistrate with regard to the applications
seeking registration of the FIR. But it is a
case where this court feels impelled to
interfere as the order does not stand the
scrutiny in the eyes of law. The order is
completely without jurisdiction for the
reason of court's complete failure to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and
that too on absolutely illegal grounds. If
the judicial officer refuses to exercise his
jurisdiction it is just as objectionable and
untenable where he wrongly exercises the
jurisdiction though he had none under law.
Who can file a complaint or lodge an FIR is
a question of law. If the same has been
brought by a person who lacks the
sanction of law or who is prohibited by
some
provision
of
law,
then
the
prosecution as a result of such filing might
be illegal. On the other hand if a person
entitled to lodge an FIR and bring the
complaint is dis-entitled to do so under
some wrong conception of law, this is also
a pure illegality and this court must
interfere to set the mistake right in order
to meet the ends of justice.

## Text

348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner suppressed material information
and gave false information and, therefore,
he cannot claim any right to continue in
service. The respondent employer has
rightly
exercised
the
discretion
to
terminate the services of the petitioner.

21. In view of the above, I find no
merit in the writ petition. The writ petition
fails and is hereby dismissed with cost.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 4542 of 2014

Vinod Kumar Sahu..... Applicant
Versus
State of U.P...... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C.-482-Application against rejection of
application under section 153(3) Cr.P.C.-on
ground if amount of bribery given by father
of applicant-who only could maintain
application-held-misconceived-if allegation
found true-can either way would be very
serious impact-if bribery demanded by
judicial officer or by an advocate for his
own benefit-order quashed-being nonest
direction to pass fresh order in light of
observation made above.

Held: Para-7
Ordinarily this court does not entertain
the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. which
assails the validity of refusal done by the
Magistrate with regard to the applications
seeking registration of the FIR. But it is a
case where this court feels impelled to
interfere as the order does not stand the
scrutiny in the eyes of law. The order is
completely without jurisdiction for the
reason of court's complete failure to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and
that too on absolutely illegal grounds. If
the judicial officer refuses to exercise his
jurisdiction it is just as objectionable and
untenable where he wrongly exercises the
jurisdiction though he had none under law.
Who can file a complaint or lodge an FIR is
a question of law. If the same has been
brought by a person who lacks the
sanction of law or who is prohibited by
some
provision
of
law,
then
the
prosecution as a result of such filing might
be illegal. On the other hand if a person
entitled to lodge an FIR and bring the
complaint is dis-entitled to do so under
some wrong conception of law, this is also
a pure illegality and this court must
interfere to set the mistake right in order
to meet the ends of justice.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J.)

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been moved assailing the validity of
the order dated 24.12.2013 passed by
Special
C.J.M.,
Kanpur
Nagar
in
Misc.Case no. 520 of 2013 u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. P.S. Kotwali District Kanpur
Nagar whereby the application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. It appears that an application under
156 Cr.P.C. was moved in the court of Special
Chief Judicial Magistrate with the allegation
that during the period when the applicant was
in jail, his father was duped by one Devendra
Verma, Advocate who misled him to believe
that the Presiding Officer in whose court
applicant's case or matter was pending, was a
corrupt officer and there is no possibility to
procure bail from that court without greasing
his palm. Further allegation was that under the
coercive pressure of this fabricated version
Rs.15,000/- were demanded from applicant's
1 All] Vinod Kumar Sahu Vs. State of U.P.
349
father and out of which Rs.12,000/- were also
coughed up to the aforesaid Advocate. The
application also contained the allegations that
after his release on bail the balance amount of
Rs.3000/- was further demanded from his
father. When the applicant came to know
about all these facts he resisted the demand
and refused to succumb to the pressure. It was
further alleged that on being refused the
aforesaid
Advocate
Devendra
Verma
threatened him with life. It was also alleged
that when the applicant approached the police
station and tried to lodge the F.I.R the police
refused to register the case against him as the
aforesaid Advocate being the General
Secretary of Bar Association wields a lot of
clout. Aggrieved by the refusal of police to
register the F.I.R with regard to the
commission of aforesaid offences, the court
was approached u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the
prayer to direct the investigation into the case
after registering the F.I.R.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned AGA. Record has
been perused.

4. The perusal of the impugned order
reveals that the primary ground which
dissuaded the learned Magistrate from
ordering the registration of the FIR was that
as the amount of Rs.12000/- was allegedly
taken from the father of the applicant
fraudulently, only the father would be the
aggrieved
person,
and
therefore,
an
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. ought to have
been moved by father and not by the
applicant who was his son.

5. This court is the view that the
reasoning given by the lower court is
patently misconceived and is wholly
untenable. In fact the allegations contained
in the application are of very serious nature
in which not only the amount of Rs.12000/-
has been cheated fraudulently from the
father but the ostensible purpose for which
the cheating was done scandalizes the
judicial institution itself. In fact if the
allegations are true then in that event even
the father of the applicant who took steps in
the direction of giving bribe may also have
to suffer the consequence of his obnoxious
conduct. The nature of allegation is such
that it could only have been brought to a
logical end through a proper investigation
alone. According to the applicant's version
he was in jail when some lawyer in order to
get him out of the prison deceitfully cheated
his father in the name of giving bribe to the
judicial Officer. The matter ought to have
been investigated regardless to the fact
whether the charge is false or true. Both
situations may have serious consequences.
It is not a case in which filing of a
complaint case can ever bring the culprits to
book. The Magistrate has abstained from
exercising the jurisdiction vested in him on
the basis of a reasoning which is wholly
against law. The misconception of law is
palpable. The Magistrate has acted under
the impression as if it was only the father
alone from whom the money was taken
who could have brought the complaint or
the FIR. It is not so. Of course there are
certain offence where only the first
aggrieved person has the right to bring the
complaint. But here in this case the offences
alleged do not come in that category or class
provided in Criminal Procedure Code.

6. The impugned order stands
quashed and the lower court is directed to
pass an appropriate order in accordance
with law.

7. Ordinarily this court does not entertain
the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. which assails
the validity of refusal done by the Magistrate
with regard to the applications seeking
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
registration of the FIR. But it is a case where
this court feels impelled to interfere as the order
does not stand the scrutiny in the eyes of law.
The order is completely without jurisdiction for
the reason of court's complete failure to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and that
too on absolutely illegal grounds. If the judicial
officer refuses to exercise his jurisdiction it is
just as objectionable and untenable where he
wrongly exercises the jurisdiction though he
had none under law. Who can file a complaint
or lodge an FIR is a question of law. If the
same has been brought by a person who lacks
the sanction of law or who is prohibited by
some provision of law, then the prosecution as
a result of such filing might be illegal. On the
other hand if a person entitled to lodge an FIR
and bring the complaint is dis-entitled to do so
under some wrong conception of law, this is
also a pure illegality and this court must
interfere to set the mistake right in order to
meet the ends of justice.

8. In the present case a person
entitled to lodge the FIR or bring a
complaint failed to exercise his legal right
because the judicial doors were not kept
ajar under a wrong conception of law
which the Magistrate had in his mind and
which
prompted
him
to
pass
the
impugned order whereby he refused to
direct the registration of FIR.

9. Being non-est in the eyes of law
the impugned order stands quashed.

10. The court below is directed to
pass fresh order in the light of the
observations made by the court in
accordance with law.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4606 of 2014

Chandra Prakash Gupta..... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors...... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dr. S.K. Yadav.

Electric
Supply
Code-2005-chapter
IV
clause-4(1)
Provisio
II-fresh
electric
connection-for domestic use-old premises
owned
by
subsequent
purchaser-new
connection can be given only on production
of no dues certificate-judgment relied by
petitioner-having no application-petition
disposed of.

Held: Para-3
Having perused the same we are of the
opinion that since in the instant case there
is already a clear statutory provision to that
effect as such a fresh electricity connection
can only be granted if No Dues Certificate is
given by the person, who is seeking to have
fresh electricity connection. Consequently,
the ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot
come to the aid of the petitioner in view of
the aforesaid statutory provision in the
Electricity Supply Code, 2005 that has been
promulgated
much
after
2004.
Consequently, if the petitioner applies for a
fresh electricity connection complying with
the aforesaid condition, it shall be open to
the respondents to consider the same in
accordance with law.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 2004 SC 2171

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, who has prayed for a mandamus