Umesh Chandra Tripathi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for private opposite parties (opposite party nos. 3-10) and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. (opposite party no. 1) and opposite party no. 2.
(2.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 213 of 2015, whereby application of the applicant-revisionist under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') to direct the police to investigate the case, was rejected.
(3.) Succinctly, facts of the case are that applicant-revisionist Virendra Kumar Fauzi had filed application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad with allegation that his daughter Sunil was married with Pravesh Pratap Singh, opposite party no. 3 on 15.06.2014. He had spent approximately Rs. 10-12 lakhs in the marriage of his daughter. After marriage, opposite party no. 3 Pravesh Pratap Singh and his family members - Satya Pal Singh, Smt. Sarla Singh, Sanjeev Kumar @ Bantoo, Rajeev Kumar, Smt. Raj Kumari and Smt. Pushpa Singh, opposite party nos. 4 to 9, respectively, started demanding Rs. 5 lakhs as cash. Pravesh Pratap Singh had an illicit relationship with Kumari Saahni Pandey, opposite party no. 10. All these facts were narrated to revisionist Virendra Kumar Fauzi and his family members by his daughter Smt. Sunil. Smt. Sunil was harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband Pravesh Pratap Singh and his family members for demand of dowry. On 03.02.2015, the abovementioned accused family members murdered Smt. Sunil by administering her poison. On the next day of the incidence, that is to say, on 04.02.2015, revisionist Virendra Kumar Fauzi got information about the death of his daughter, by residents of Sirsaganj, the matrimonial hometown of deceased Smt. Sunil. When he reached at Sirsaganj, he came to know that the accused family members had already got conducted her final rites to destroy the evidence. The revisionist then went to the police station to lodge a first information report, but the police did not lodge the report. Thereafter, he met Superintendent of Police, Firozabad in person and send an application by registered post about the incidence to him. Even so, FIR was not lodged at the police station. Then, the revisionist preferred an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned.;