Abdul Mukid vs State of U.P.

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—On 30.12.2005 around 11.30 p.m. on the way in between Debai district Bulandshahr and village Mirzapur, district Aligarh the tractor and the trolley of the applicant were looted by three unknown persons who are said to have carried away the tractor and the trolley with them after assaulting and injuring the complainant and his driver Mukesh. Complainant went to the Police station to lodge a first information report but the first information report was not registered at police station. Thereafter, the complainant sent a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh. When the Senior Superintendent of Police did not take any action, the applicant applied u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh for registration and investigation of the case by the police of Police Station Zegar, which the Magistrate declined vide order dated 19.1.2006.

The applicant challenged the order of the Magistrate by filing a criminal revision (Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2006) which the Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 1 Aligarh also dismissed.

That is what brings the applicant u/s 482, Cr. P.C. to this Court with a prayer to set aside the aforesaid order and for issuance of directions for the registration of the first information report in the matter.

Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, advocate for the applicant and Sri R. K. Maurya, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

This Court is totally at a loss to comprehend the attitude of the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in rejecting the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. for registration of a case.

According to the aforesaid allegations of the applicant, it was clearly a case of Highway Robbery which is one of the most heinous offence which the police are supposed to prevent because that disrupts thorough fair and traffic. On the very face of the allegations, the case should have been ordered to be registered.

The police report says that the contention of the applicant is false and he had obtained the tractor on loan and has now given it to another person on hire and makes a wrong allegation, the Tractor having been taken away, in order to evade financial liability. But that circumstance will not provide justification for refusing registration of the case. The police may mention this fact and give a final report after investigation u/s 169, Cr. P.C. but they cannot refuse registration of the case.

The Sessions Judge concerned dwelled into the intricacies in the matter and mentioned that if the driver and the complainant had been tied with a rope, as alleged, there would have been injury marks of the ropes on the body. But these details cannot be taken into account at the time of registration of the case and the entire approach of the Magistrate as well as of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh was, therefore, lop-sided.

The petition must, therefore, be allowed and the case must be registered by the police and investigation should follow.

Petition allowed.