Virendra Kumar Fauzi vs. State of UP And 9 Others (2018 07 AHC CK 0042)  

Citation	(2018) 07 AHC CK 0042
Date of Judgment	12th July 2018
Court	Allahabad High Court
Case Type	Criminal Revision No. – 1162 of 2015
Appellant	Virendra Kumar Fauzi
Respondent	The State of Uttar Pradesh
Bench	Justice Umesh Chandra Tripathi
Referred	Section – 156(3), 482 of IPC

FACTS OF THE CASE

The applicant Virendra Kumar had filed a complaint against Pravesh Pratap Singh’s opposite party, Pratap Singh married his daughter on 15/6/2014 under section 156(3) CrPC in Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad. He further stated that he spent around 10-12 lakhs rupees in their marriage.

After marriage, Pratap Singh and his family members started demanding 5 lakhs rupees. His daughter Sunil was harassed by his family for not meeting the demand for dowry. Pratap Singh also had illicit relations with Kumari Saahni Pandey.

On 03/02/2015, his family killed her by giving her poison. On 04/02/2015, the next day when Virendra Kumar got to know about his daughter’s death he rushed to his matrimonial hometown, There he got the information that the accused family already perform the final rites to destroy the evidence.

Later, Virendra Kumar went to the police station to file an FIR but the police didn’t lodge his complaint. Then he went to meet the superintendent of police in Fizorabad in person and also sent an application still FIR wasn’t lodged. Then he finally sent an application under section 156(3) of CrPC before the magistrate.

Later, the magistrate concerned the police station to call for a report. In the report, the police station reported that Smt. Sunil was pregnant and ill. She also works in Primary School, in Chanaura as a teacher. She used to go to her matrimonial home. Her treatment was conducted by Dr. Mamta Motwarni of Sirsaganj (Four months before the occurrence).

During that time, she fell on the ground and sustained some injury at her parental home. After the incident, Dr. Mamta referred her to the trauma center in Firozabad. During the treatment, she died her father Virendra Kumar and her other family came and took away her mortal remains and also performed her final rituals.

ISSUES

1. Whether registration of F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.?
2. Whether the police are bound to make an investigation if F.I.R. is lodged in the cognizable offense?
3. Whether the Magistrate is bound to order for investigation if the cognizable offense is disclosed in the F.I.R. or application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.?

ARGUMENTS

On the behalf of petitioner side, the learned counsel Y.M. Mishra, Avanish Kumar Shukla, and Mithilesh Kumar Shukla argue that registration of the first information report is mandatory if the commission is a cognizable offense.

He further argues that in the case of cognizable offenses, the magistrate is also bound to direct the police to the registration of the case and also to investigate the case.

According to learned counsel, Govt. Advocate, B.K. Tripathi appearing on behalf of the opposite party argued that in the case of Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of U.P and others (2017) 13 SCC 369 held that when the reporting the filed under section 156 of CrPC with the false and mala fide intention, or because of personal grudge the magistrate is not bound to order the police to perform an investigation.

JUDGEMENT

In this case, it was stated that often people rush to the High Court when the grievances did not register in FIR at the police station to file a writ petition under section 482 CrPC. It was also held that the high court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters. The petitioners have an available remedy in Section 154(3) and Section 36 CrPC before the police officers and also under the magistrate under Section 156(3).

If a person’s grievances have not been registered, the first remedy for them is to approach the superintendent of the police station under section 154(3).

The magistrate has very wide power to direct the investigation and even ensure that the investigation has been properly done.

Now, in the present case, the dowry death allegation has been leveled up by the accused under section 304B of IPC. For the constitution of dowry death, the death of women must have been within seven years. And in this case, it is alleged that Smt. Sunil was poised but the primary report reported that she was treated on 03/02/2015 by Dr. Mamta and then referred to a trauma center where she died a natural death. It was also noted that applicant Virendra Kumar has not mentioned the date and time when he reached the police station to file the FIR.

Also, it was held that if the allegation made in FIR was so absurd, the High Court may quash the entire proceedings.

In the concluding remarks it was stated that they found no illegality order passed on 11/03/2015 by chief judicial magistrate Firozabad, and therefore the instant revision, being demerits is dismissed.

REFERENCES

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?s_acts=Criminal%20Procedure%20Code,%201898%20(CrPC)&section_art=section&s_article_val=563

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/185598904/

https://legaldata.in/court/read/1668179

This Article is written by Nikhil Yadav of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.