Krishna Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party.

The order dated 672007, whereby the petitioner''s application for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected, and the revisional order dated 15122008, whereby the revision was dismissed, both are under challenge in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the pumping set of the petitioner was stolen hence, an F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner at Case Crime No.7 of 2004. He states that in the said case, the police demanded illegal gratification to which the petitioner declined hence the police submitted the final report. He also states that the stolen pumping set was actually recovered from the house of the accused persons but was shown to have been recovered from the possession of none and that the accused persons arrested by the police were released after taking money from them.

The petitioner''s application under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for demanding illegal gratification by the police, was rejected by the Magistrate concerned stating that the police has submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons Ram Singh Misra and Pappu Misra, the named accused of the case. A revision filed against the order passed by the Magistrate, was dismissed on the ground that the Magistrate has power to reject the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

On being asked why the investigation is necessary, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the fact whether the pumping set was recovered from the accused persons or not and the fact that the police after arresting the accused released them or not, are such matters whereupon no evidence may be adduced without investigation.

The fact whether the pumping set was recovered from the possession of the accused persons or from anywhere else, is the subject matter of case crime No. 7 of 2004 and in the like manner the fact of the release of the accused after their arrest, if any, is also the subject matter of case crime No. 7 of 2004.

The evidence regarding the fact whether the police personnels S.I. Ram Krishna Shukla of policestation Khargoopur district Gonda, A.S.I. Shiv Baran Pal of police station Visheshwarganj district Gonda and H.C. Had Shanker Singh of police station Visheshwarganj district Gonda demanded any illegal gratification or not is well within the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner may adduce evidence on these issues in a complaint case.

In the case in hand no recovery of any property or person is to be made. The alleged offence is also not of the heinous nature. The allegation levelled in the petition are also not of such a nature, which could not be levelled falsely. In such circumstances, the Magistrate concerned committed no error in declining to apply his discretionary powers provided under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

In view of the discussion made above, I find no illegality in the order dated 672007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, nor in the order dated 15122008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich. The petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a complaint which may be entertained by the Magistrate concerned in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and other relevant laws.