RAKESH PURI AND ORS. V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS (2006)

RAKESH PURI AND ORS. V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS (2006)

FACTS OF THE CASE

The application of revision is filed by two uterine brother Rakesh Puri and Bhaskar Puri against an order  passed by the ACJM, Varanasi under Sec 156(3) CrPc on application of Respondent Shubhankar Chakravarti. The Court of ACJM passed for registration and investigation. 

On 10.08.1996 the respondent filed an application accusing the brothers under Sec 156(3) of CrPc. It was narrated that on the night of 06.08.06 Himanshu Singh and Gaurav Gupta were performing prayer in the temple on Batuk Bhairo Mandir were the respondent is ‘Mahant’. The revisionists along with seven others ‘anti social elements’ entered and continued to utter indecent words, abuses and threatened to vacate the temple. Further, Rakesh Puri was seen to be assaulting Gaurav Gupta with a ‘Bhujali’ on instructions by his brother. Others present were also assaulted that led to severe injuries to all of them. It was also mentioned that during this hassle Bhaskar Puri had fired at Shubhankar from his country pistol but missed. The ‘marpit’ was stopped by the people of the locality. The written complaint was not accepted to be registered as an FIR by the Police Station Incharge, Bhelupur, Varanasi on the charge of no medical examination despite of the applicants being examined in Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Government Hospital. The respondent wrote to the SSP, Varanasi in such grievance. Upon no action being taken, he wrote to the Magistrate under Sec 156(3) on 10.08.06 attached with the report to SSP and the three medical reports. The reports disclosed the injuries of the persons- Himanshu Singh’s reports stated of “four visible injuries of arious sizes” and complaints of pain, Gaurav Gupta’s reports indicated a “lacerated wound with three abrasions and swellings”, Shubhankar Chakravarti’s reports identified “three contused swellings and abrasions”. According to the medical practitioner these injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. The applicants had appeared before te court to request a stay in such matter but their plea was rejected by the ACJM as there was “no locus standi and their application was not maintainable”. 

In view of these findings, the ACJM Court 2, Varanasi ordered the registration and investigation of the case on 19.08.06. The applicants however, filed for revision in High Court of Allahabad on the order passed on 19.08.06.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

The question arises before the court of maintainability of the revision filed by the applicants before the High Court of Allahabad.

CONTENTIONS BY THE REVISIONISTS

Sir Manish Tiwari being the counsel off the revisionists supported his stand by mentioning that since the complaint has been registered under Sec 156(3), it enforces the police to file the FIR against such persons and hence the fundamental right of the applicants is jeopardized. He pleaded before the court to allow such revision and set aside the passed order.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The learned AGA of the respondent was of the view that the revision application was not maintainable and that the Magistrate was not obliged to hear the accused, he was only exercising administrative power by passing order to the police. They added that the accused may challenge such order passed if the FIR does not disclose the cognizable offence committed. He argued that the contention of the opposing party is invalid and against the basic principles of criminal law as well as the above mentioned section. They added that according to several past judgments by the Apex Court, the has no right to hearing before the summons. The counsel further said that the Sec 397 and 401 are not applicable and revision must be dismissed. 

JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE COURT

The court in the above matter made thorough inquiry and delved into the various legal interpretations of Sec 156 of CrPc. The court relied on various landmark judgement to support its decision. The court focused on registration of a FIR based on the complaint under Sec 156(3). It provides the responsibility on the police to ascertain the cases and investigate accordingly. It was seen by the court on interpretation of the Code that if an offence proves to be cognizable, the police officials have the duty to file and FIR and there is no right to refuse. If the Officer believes there is “reason to suspect” that a cognizable offence is made, they may investigate it. This has been highlighted in the case of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal and Ors (1992), the court in regard to Sec 154(1) claimed that the inquiry is not solely dependent on the reliability and originality of the complainant and shall not refuse to institute a case in above stated grounds. The Apex Court also made a clear distinction between FIR and investigation in the same case. Court also followed the judgement of Madhu Bala vs Suresh Kumar and Ors (1997) where the Supreme Court delivered that Sec 156(3) of CrPc provides for an investigation order to be made to the police with proper directions to register the case FIR and begin investigation on the same. The Apex Court taking support from such judgement said that no person carries an inherent right to challenge an order for registration of FIR in a case and investigation of offence under Sec 156(3). 

The Court in this revisional case took reference from other past cases such as Janta Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. (1993), Kekoo J. Maneckji vs Union of India, Ram Lal Yadav vs State of UP (1979),  Ajai Malviya v. State of U (2000), Subarmaniyam Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra (2005), Atul Kumar Mathur and Ors. Vs State of UP and Ors. (1994), Nagawwa vs V.S. Konjalgi (1976). In summary, the Supreme Court in these landmark judgement supported the view that according to CrPc, an accused does not have a right to challenge the proceedings of court at every stage of the proceedings, even if Fundamental rights of such person are being violated. For instance in case of Sec 200, 202 of CrPc the accused does not have a right to challenge the registration of complaint and cognizance by Magistrate, Issue of bailable and non-bailable warrants and many others situations. According to the finding of the court, the power of police in such section of CrPc is to passed by the Magistrate when they are approached and that if an application or a complaint specifying the commission of a cognizable offence is filed and the Magistrate is approached by aggrieved to order for an investigation he has to order for such an investigation and he does not have any other option. It is a mandate by law. They also explain that Sec 156(3) may be a judicial order but its application is administrative in nature.

The court in such matter of revision made the following findings :

1. The decision of Magistrate to call for registration and investigation does not invalidate the fundamental rights of a person as they have the right to seek remedy at different stages of the trial. 
2. The accused does not have and inherent right to be heard before they are summoned by the court according to the provisions of the CrPc. The accused also does not have the right raise objection or challenge the order of court until such summons are passed and must adhere to the provisions of the code. 
3. Such application under Sec 482 CrPc is not maintainable to “secure the ends of justice” and that if a cognizable offence is made it is a mandate to have such complaint registered and investigated to bring such accused to light and award necessary punishment.
4. The extent of proceeding under Sec 156(3) is not limited to ordering for investigation. It provides the Magistrate with the duty to scan the application and recognise the cognizable offence made. Here, the Magistrate has the same power as does the police in Sec 173(8).
5. Such a revision in not maintainable under Sec 397(1) and is barred under Sec 397(2).

Lastly, the court in such case held that the writ petition for quashing the FIR is not maintainable until such order is challenged by the aggrieved party. It was also stated that ‘legal rights’ and ‘constitutional rights’ are two separate classifications. The Criminal Procedure Code entails ‘Legal Rights’ whereas the Articles 32, 226 of The Indian Constitution include ‘Fundamental and Constitutional Rights’. The court in reference to Sec 156(3) held that the accused does not have any fundamental right to challenge unless an FIR is registered against him. The court finally held that the revision application lacks merit and dismissed it.

REFRENCES USED

IndianKanoon.org

Manupatra.com

This article is written by Ravishma Sharma, a student at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, 4^th Year, an Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Admin