Madan Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors

Ram Krishna Gautam, J

As per office report, opposite parties were served with notice, but no counter affidavit got filed.

Heard learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for State.

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Madan Singh with a prayer for setting aside impugned order dated 11.03.2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Farrukhabad, in Complaint Case No. 1756 of 2019 (Madan Singh Versus Jagdish and others), under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and thereby direction to court concerned for reconsidering at the point of summoning.

Learned counsel for revisionist argued that in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved for registration and investigation of case. It was treated as complaint, wherein statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were got recorded. Thereafter, complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C., whereas statements were fully intact and cognizable offence was made out. The complainant Madan Singh came in interaction with Jagdish, father-in-law of his nephew Rohit, who was there to attend his first marriage anniversary ceremony, on 22.11.2016, along with his relative Raja Ram and his daughter-in-law Kiran. They pursued for marriage of Mohit with Sheetal. Under their persuasion, complainant along with his family members visited home of accused persons at village Kankapur on 13.12.2016, but they were pressurized for seeing Km. Sheetal in that very night and after it proposal was refused. But a threat of coercion was exercised, whereupon a golden chain worth Rs.15,000/- with Sarees and other articles along with sweets worth Rs.5,000/- was given. Thereafter complainant could return back at 12 O' Clock in the night. On 05.04.2017, complainant along with Jagdish went to house of accused persons no. 5 to 6, at about 2 P.M. and asked for return of above articles, but he was badly abused. He tried to get the case lodged at police station and after its denial, this complaint was filed. Complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. wherein there was complete reiteration of contention of complaint. It was corroborated by testimony recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., but even after sufficient evidence, constituting offence punishable, the impugned order of dismissal of complaint was passed. This was failure to appreciate facts and law placed on record, thereby mis-exercise of jurisdiction vested in the court of Magistrate as well as apparent error on the face of record. Hence, this revision.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application with this contention that it was highly improbable. Neither boy, for whom bride was selected, was examined nor there is any mark of specification regarding articles given, whereas a case has already been registered against complainant, wherein demand of dowry and refusal of marriage was complained. The order was well within jurisdiction of Magistrate. Hence, this revision be dismissed.

From the very perusal of impugned order, it is apparent that Magistrate has rejected the claim regarding registration of case crime number in an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Division Bench of this Court in Ram Babu Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; 2001 (43) A.C.C. 50, and Sukhwasi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh; 2007 (59) A.C.C. 739 and apex court in Suresh Chandra Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another; 2001 (42) A.C.C. 459 and Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others; (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171, has propounded that Magistrate is not bound to direct for registration and investigation of each and every case, wherein application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved. Rather, it may take cognizance by itself and proceed as a complaint case. Hence, this registration of complaint case and thereby proceeding by Magistrate itself over an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was well within jurisdiction of Magistrate.

Passing order for summoning under Section 204 Cr.P.C. or dismissing complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., on the basis of evidence collected in the inquiry, made by Magistrate, by way of application of judicial mind, is jurisdiction vested in Magistrate. He may either summon under Section 204 Cr.P.C., in cases where prima facie offence are made out, or may dismiss complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., wherein situation is otherwise. Hence, Magistrate is empowered either for dismissal of the complaint or summoning of accused persons. Hence, impugned order of dismissal of complaint is well within jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Regarding appreciation of fact, this Court, under exercise of revision jurisdiction is not to analyze the fact. But apparently what is clear, that this complainant made entire sequence of fact, narrated by him, but neither marriage was ever solemnized nor he was father of the groom nor the groom had been examined nor the specific mark of identification is there on the articles, which was ought to be given nor single iota was said either in the complaint or in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. regarding criminal case, which was lodged against complainant and his family members, for this proposed marriage. It itself shows that it was an attempt to counter the previously instituted case against complainant.

A bride is not a physical commodity. It could never be said that one is having option to see her and then select or reject her for marriage. Rather, bride itself is with fundamental rights, guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, and she herself is having all rights of life and liberty. It can never be permitted to male chauvinism to see photograph and then select or reject for marriage, as has been said by complainant. What may be a criteria for selecting a girl for marriage or for rejecting a girl for marriage? that too not by a person with whom marriage is going to be performed, rather his father or uncle, is nothing more than a case of male chauvinism. Hence, on the evidence collected by Magistrate, this impugned order was well within jurisdiction of Magistrate having no illegality or irregularity.

Accordingly, the revision merits its dismissal. The revision is dismissed as such.