- (1.) M. K. Mittal, J. This criminal revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 1. 12. 2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, in Misc. Case No. 84 of 2006, Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. Thakur Das and others, where by learned Magistrate rejected the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. G. on the ground that the first Information report had already been lodged regarding the incident by Thakur Das.
(2.) HEARD Sri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the materia? on record. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionistfiled the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. alleging that she is a widw lady and was living with her family members in the house of Thakur Das for the last 15 years. Thakur Das wanted to get the house vacated forcibly with the help of police and she was threatened. She was also asked to change her statement in favour of Thakur Das in the murder case of Titu. But she did not agree to it. On 17th October, 2006 at about 3. 30 p. m. the accused Thakur Das along with Radhey Shyam Verma, Sub-Inspector of Police, out post Surendra Nagar, PS. Ouarsi, along with 3-4 other police personnel came to her house and started throwing her articles from the house. They also set the house on fire resulting in the loss of her goods. At that time her daughter Babita, Daughter-in-law Smt. Sushila were also present. Case for ejectment was also pending in the Civil Court. She gave an application and also sent a telegram to S. S. P. regarding incident and also gave an application at Police Station Ouarsi but no report was written. Thereafter she filed the applica tion under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. Learned Magistrale after considering the application came to the conclusion on the basis of the police report that a case had already been registered regarding incident at the instance of Thakur Das at Crime No. 733 of 2006 and therefore, the application was not maintainable. The revisionist has filed the copy of the first information report lodged by Thakur Das and it shows that Smt. Chakuntala Devi is one of the accused along with her other family members. In this report it has been alleged that the accused persons had taken on rent two roor"- or lhepretextofthe marriageoftheirsisterbutdid not vacate thereafter, in spite of agreement between them. On 17th October, 2006 the accused persons took their goods out of the room and set the house on fire causing damage to the house.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has contended that if the report was already lodged at the instance of Thakur Das it could not be a ground to reject the application filed by Smt. Shakuntaia Devi because she had put up a cross version and cross case should have been directed to be registered and investigated. LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the case of Kari Choudhary. Smt. Sita Devi and others, 2002 (45)ACC 342 (SC ). In that case the Apex Court has held that when there are rival versions in respect of same episode they would normally take the shape of two different first information reports and therefore, investigation can be carried under both of them by same investigating agency. He has also placed reliance on the case of upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and others, 2005 (51) ACC 673 (SC ). In that case the full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the correctness of the law laid down in the case of II Aniony v. State of Kerala and others, 2001 (43) ACC 345 (SC) and held that the Court has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter case from the purview of the Code and only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused sub?equent to the regis tration of a case is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same ac cused will amount an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original com plaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. The Apex Court also held in the case of Upkar Singh that this prohibition does not apply to counter complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of said incident. It has also been held that if the police refused to register a counter complaint it is open to the Magistrate at any stage to direct the police to register the complaint brought to his notice and investigate the same. It has also been held that if the counter complaint is prohibited under the it would lead to serious consequences.;