Saheena Bano vs State of U.P.

A. Mateen, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.

The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred against order dated 28102004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 775 of 2004 by means of which the learned Magistrate has rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and also against revisional order dated 1822005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow (Court No. 10) in Criminal Revision No. 340 of 2004.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to one Mohd. Rizwan on 1632001 and out of the wedlock a child was born who is aged about two and a half years. The husband Mohd. Rizwan and the inlaws of the petitioner started to illtreat the petitioner and on 12102004 the petitioner was given a severe beating by her husband and her inlaws and was turned out from her matrimonial house. On 14102004 the petitioner was got medically examined. Injury report of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure3 to the petition. The petitioner approached police station Mahila, Lucknow but her report was not lodged, as such, she moved application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. which have been rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 10), Lucknow by means of the impugned orders.

Hence this petition.

In view of law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Madhubala v. Suresh Kumar, 1997 JIC 979 (SC) : 1997 Cr LJ 7357(SC), and also in view of the observations made by the Division Bench case of this Court in Suraj Mal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 1995(2) JIC 1523 (All) : 1993(30) ACC 81, the orders dated 28102004 and 1822005 of the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court on the face of it are totally unjustified and cannot be allowed to stand. From the averments made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. moved by the petitioner, commission of cognizable offence is undoubtedly made out. The petitioner had received injuries in the incident and, as observed above, copy of the injury report has been annexed as Annexure3 to the petition. The petitioner had also approached the police authorities of the concerned police station, but her report was not lodged. As held by the apex Court in the case of Madhubala (supra), a duty is caste upon the Court to have directed the police authorities concerned to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter. In the case in hand, the learned Courts below have acted on the contrary and have dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. moved by the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention it here that an order under Section 156(3) of the Code is in the nature of peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise its plenary powers of investigation. Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process, which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 of the Code and ends with a report or chargesheet, as the case may be, under Section 173 of the Code.

In view of my observations made above, order dated 28102004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and order dated 1822005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow (Court No. 10) are hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure that F.I.R. on the basis of the application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. moved by the petitioner is registered at the police station concerned within a week from the date of production of a certified copy of the order and investigation is conducted expeditiously.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.