Subhawati Giri vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that even after, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur came to the conclusion that cognizable offences were disclosed in the application filed by the applicant under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. yet he did not direct the police to register the F.I.R. In case of Lalita Kurnari v. Government of U.P., 2009 (64) ACC 214 (SC) the Apex Court has deprecated such practice in strongest terms.

In view of above, the order dated 25.7.2008 passed by C.J.M. Gorakhpur and subsequent order dated 5.11.2008 passed by Incharge Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No. 347 of 2008 (Smt. Subhawati Giri v. State of U.P.) under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are hereby set aside. Once cognizable offence was disclosed it was the duty of C.J.M., Gorakhpur to direct the police to follow the law and it should not have granted latitude to the police to flout the law by not adhering to the statutory responsibility thrust upon them under the law.

This application is allowed with the direction to C.J.M., Gorakhpur to redecide the application of the applicant under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law.

Application Allowed.