Veer Kunwar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Veer Kunwar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others 

Case Name	Veer Kunwar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Citation	ILR 2020 UP 1612
Case Number	CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1612 of 2020
Date of Judgment	18 December 2020
Court	High Court Judicature at Allahabad
Case Type	Rev. Petition
Petitioner	Veer Kunwar Singh
Respondent	State of UP & 4 Others
Bench	Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
Referred Law	Section 156(3) of CrPcSection 200, 202, 203 of CrPCSection 397/401 of IPC

Keywords: Section 156(3) of CrPc, Section 200 CrPC, Section 202 CrPC, Section 203 of CrPC, Section 397/401 of IPC

INTRODUCTION: 

The case of Veer Kunwar Singh vs State of U.P. presents a significant legal dispute that emerged within the Indian legal system. The case, which took place on 18 December 2020, revolves around the actions of Veer Kunwar Singh and the subsequent charges pressed against him by the State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). This analysis aims to delve into the factual background, legal arguments, and key findings of the case. By exploring the intricacies of Veer Kunwar Singh vs State of U.P., we seek to gain insights into the legal principles, precedents, and implications that arise from this noteworthy legal battle.

BACKGROUND OF CASE: 

The revisionist filed this revision under Section 397/401 of the Indian Penal Code in order to contest the judgement and order made on June 30, 2020, in the case of Veer Kunwar Singh vs. Manjeet Singh @ Mantoo and others, under Section 156(3) of the Penal Code, at Police Station Swar in the District of Rampur. This application was framed as a complaint case and his statement was recorded as per section 200 under CrPC.

Briefly stated facts of the case according to the revision/application are that on June 16, 2020, the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the opposing parties with the allegation that they had forged an undated family agreement regarding Plot No. 56 in Kishanpur, Maulagrah, Tehsil Swar, District Rampur, in which the revisionist’s grandfather, Brahma Prasad Singh, is listed as party no. 1. The opposing parties no 2 and 3 were the second parties and the other two parties were shown as witnesses. The revisionist examined the file pertaining to the plot no. 56 and discovered that some forgery had been committed when he learned about the family agreement while he was attending a mediation proceeding held in accordance with the order of the learned Court below in a Civil Suit filed by the revisionist’s father. The revisionist had his grandfather’s signature examined by a handwriting expert after discovering that it did not match the signature on another family document that had been signed by the revisionist’s grandfather. The Tehsildar initially rejected the request for a mutation by order, but then overturned the ruling that had allowed the request in favour of the private opposing parties.

ISSUES RAISED:

The issues raised in this present case are-

1. Is the Magistrate required by law to order the police to register a FIR and conduct an investigation into every instance in which an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is made to the Magistrate disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, or does the Magistrate also have the authority and power to issue an order registering the application as a complaint case?
2. What factors should the Magistrate take into account when deciding whether to move forward with a complaint case or request a police investigation?
3. What is the difference between a police investigation conducted in accordance with a magistrate’s directive issued under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and a police investigation conducted in accordance with Section 156(3) Cr. P.C?
4. Whether the Magistrate’s decision in the current case can be upheld or not?

CONTENTION OF PARTIES:

Arguments of Petitioner: Gaurav Pratap Singh was the honourable legal counsel on behalf of the petitioner. He stated that Inasmuch as the learned Magistrate registered the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case and instructed the applicant/complainant to record his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the order under review does not serve the interests of justice. As the allegations in the complaint/application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate must have directed the police to register the FIR, make an investigation, and submit a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. If the application disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate must have directed for investigation by police before taking cognizance and must not have taken upon himself and register the application as a complaint case. 

Arguments of Opposing Counsel: Learned According to AGA, the Magistrate has the authority to order the police to file an F.I.R. and conduct an inquiry without first taking cognizance. However, he also has the authority to take action, register the application as a complaint case, and proceed to investigate the situation on his own. In this situation, he must adhere to the complaint case procedure. In light of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., he has argued that the Magistrate still has the authority to order a police investigation while a complaint matter is being heard. If the magistrate chose to register the application as a complaint case at his or her discretion, no crime was committed by the magistrate.

JUDGMENT:

After observing various case laws regarding the same facts and after analyzing the present factual scenario, Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari dismissed the petition filed by Mr Veer Kunwar Singh because according to him it lacked merit. The reasoning & observations behind this judgment are as follows-

In regard to Issues no 1,2 & 3 mentioned above Justice Tilhari declared that they are interconnected and that’s why the legal provisions should be considered from its early stage. According to him, adjudication and crime detection are two integral parts of the justice delivery system. The judiciary is the last judge of whether the people accused of the crime are guilty or not, while crime detection is the sole responsibility of the police. The investigative agency should operate effectively, impartially, and independently of any outside agency, regardless of how potent it may be, in order to maintain the public’s faith in the effectiveness of the entire system. Chapter XII of the CrPC lists the responsibilities of the police and their investigative authority. According to section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, any officer in charge of a police station may investigate any cognizable case that a court with jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have the authority to look into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII without a magistrate’s order. No police officer’s actions in a matter like this may ever be questioned on the grounds that the officer lacked the authority to look into it according to this clause. Such an investigation may be ordered by any Magistrate with authority under Section 190.

Cognizance and complaint case procedures are outlined in Chapters XIV and XV, respectively. Sections 190, 200, 202, and 203 of the Cr.P.C. are reproduced as follows: – Section 190 Magistrates’ cognizance of an offence-

(1) Any magistrate of the first class, as well as any magistrate of the second class particularly empowered in this regard under Subsection (2), may take cognizance of any offence, subject to the provisions of this Chapter.

A. Upon receiving a complaint containing facts that support such an offence.

B. Upon a police report including such information.

C. Upon learning that such an offence has been committed, either via information received from a source other than a police officer or through personal knowledge.

(2) Any second-class magistrate may be given authority by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance under Subsection (1).

And according to Section 202 of CrPC-

(1) Upon receiving a complaint of an offence for which he is authorised to take cognizance or that has been turned over to him under Section 192, any Magistrate may, if he so chooses, postpone the issuance of process against the accused and, in cases where the accused is residing outside the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as the Magistrate may deem appropriate.

(a) if it appears to the magistrate that the alleged offence is only subject to trial by the Sessions Court.

(b) Unless the complainant and any present witnesses (if any) have been sworn in under section 200, the complaint will not be admissible in cases where it has not been brought by a court. 

(2) The Magistrate may, if he sees fit, take witness testimony under oath during an investigation under Sub-Section (1); With the caveat that the Magistrate shall request the complainant to present all of his witnesses and have them put under oath if it appears to him that the alleged offence is one that can only be tried by the Court of Session.

(3). If a non-police officer conducts an investigation as required by Subsection (1), he or she will be granted all the authority granted to an officer in charge of a police station by this Code for the purposes of that investigation, with the exception of the authority to make warrantless arrests.

If the facts in a complaint or application made pursuant to Section 156(3) reveal the commission of an offence, the Magistrate “may take cognizance,” which is not the same as “must take cognizance” in the meaning of Section 190 of the Code. The term “may” offers the Magistrate discretion in this regard. The Magistrate has two options under Section 190: he can either take cognizance under Section 190 or he can send the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for them to investigate. The difference between a police officer’s investigation under Section 156(3) and one under Section 202(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is that the former occurs at the pre-cognizance stage, whilst the latter occurs at the post-cognizance stage, when the Magistrate is in charge of the case. 

In contrast to the inquiry report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. of the investigation made by the police on its own or at the Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the investigation under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of determining the truth or falsity of the complaint to assist the Magistrate in determining whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further against the accused by issuing process. He would not be competent to return to the pre-notice stage under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. once the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and he has begun the procedure outlined in Chapter XV.

If the magistrate took cognizance of the case but did not order a police investigation pursuant to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., this would not preclude the magistrate from exercising his or her authority to order a police inquiry pursuant to Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. According to the learned attorney for the revisionist, it is not legally accurate in light of the reasoning made above to claim that once a cognizable offence is disclosed in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has no choice but to order the registration of a FIR. The application can be taken into consideration by the magistrate, who can then move on with the case as a complaint.

The applicant’s knowledgeable attorney has not been able to demonstrate how the Magistrate’s exercise of discretion in registering the application as a complaint case is flawed in any way. The order that is being challenged is a speaking order that was made based on a careful examination of the circumstances of the case and the relevant legal standards. I don’t see any illegality in the learned magistrate’s order. The same complies with the law. It is made clear that the dismissal of this petition or the order being challenged herein would not stand in the way of the exercise of the power under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. if the Magistrate determines during the course of the complaint case that it is a case appropriate for investigation by the police or any other person he deems fit under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. for the limited purpose of satisfying himself for proceeding against the accused persons for their summoning.

CONCLUSION:

The case of Veer Kunwar Singh vs State of U.P. has played a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape of India. Through its proceedings, the case has offered crucial insights into the interpretation of the law, the role of evidence, and the process of justice. As we conclude this analysis, it becomes evident that the Veer Kunwar Singh vs State of U.P. case holds broader significance beyond its immediate parties. It serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the principles of fairness, equity, and due process within the Indian legal system. The case has contributed to the ongoing dialogue on legal rights, constitutional safeguards, and the administration of justice, thereby leaving a lasting impact on the Indian judiciary.

This Case Analysis is prepared by Dibyojit Mukherjee a student of DSNLU 28