Raju Rastogi and Others vs The State of U.P.

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Sri Suresh Chandra Shukla, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 and files power on her behalf, which is taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 3 as well as perused the documents available on record.

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned order dated 23.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No. 157 of 2010 and the impugned order dated 30.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki in Misc. Appln. No. 184 of 2010.

From a perusal of the records, it appears that the Opposite Party No. 3-Smt. Sangeeta who is the wife of the Petitioner No. 3-Santosh Kumar Rastogi moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki for direction to the S.O. of P.S. Kursi to register and investigate the case against the accused. The application was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 30.6.2010 with the observation that the allegations made in the application disclose the commission of cognizable offence. The accused, thereafter, preferred revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki. The learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki by reasoned judgment dated 23.8.2010 dismissed the revision.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the applicant-opposite party No. 3 moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. earlier with false allegations that the petitioners were harassing and torturing her which was allowed by the learned Magistrate and consequently an F.I.R. was lodged which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court and the Hon''ble Court was pleased to stay the arrest of the petitioners. The second F.I.R. is nothing but an abuse to the criminal process. The opposite party No. 3 is in habit of lodging F.I.R. one after another. The learned Magistrate without applying his mind summoned the accused and the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision without considering the allegations made in the application of the opposite party No. 3. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki allowing the application of Opposite Party No. 3 and the revisional order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 3.

The learned Magistrate by detailed and reasoned order has allowed the application of the applicant-opposite party No. 3 with observation that the allegations made by the applicant-opposite party No. 3 in her application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclose commission of cognizable offence and the learned Sessions Judge by detailed and reasoned judgment dismissed the revision of the petitioners which do not suffer from any illegality hence the same cannot be quashed.

The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.