NAWAL KISHOR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UP
LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-68
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 04,2010

Nawal Kishor Gupta Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to respondent No. 3. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 23.7.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandausi, District-Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. 200 of 2010, Krishnapal Gupta v. State of U.P.
(2.) An application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No. 3, which was rejected by A.C.J.M. Moradabad on the ground that the dispute is of civil nature. The respondent no . 3 preferred a Criminal Revision No. 200 of 2010, which was allowed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandausi vide order dated 23rd July, 2010. The order passed by the Magistrate was set aside and learned Sessions Judge directed S.H.O., P.S. Chandausi to register FIR on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No. 3.
(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can only be exercised by Magistrate and not by the Sessions Judge. If the Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the order passed by the Magistrate, then he could have remanded the matter to the Magistrate for passing a fresh order in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but the Sessions Judge himself could not have passed an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. I fully agree with the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction while passing an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. himself. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.7.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandausi in Criminal Revision No. 200 of 2010 is set aside and learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide the revision afresh. If learned Sessions Judge comes to the conclusion that FIR should be registered, then he can direct the Magistrate to reconsider the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law and also in accordance with the directions given by learned Sessions Judge. FEB4 Petition allowed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.