Neutral Citation No.

- 2023:AHC:191417

Court No. - 81
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8458 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ragini Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri Sajeev Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been moved by the
petitioner challenging the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ghazipur in Misc. Case No.556 of 2022 (Ragini Devi vs. Shailendra @ Deepak
Pandey and Others) as well as the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court Second, Ghazipur in Criminal Revision No.91 of 2022
(Ragini Devi vs. Shailendra @ Deepak Pandey and Others), whereby the order of C.J.M. was
affirmed and revision was dismissed.

3. Relevant facts related to this petition are as below:-

The applicant- Smt. Ragini Devi (the petitioner herein) filed an application under section-
156(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to register a case against the respondent nos.2 to 8, with the
allegations that the opposite side intruded in her house at about 8:00 p.m. in the evening on
19.03.2022. They were drunk; they used abusive language against her devar and also
physically assaulted her mother-in-law. All the accused persons, in prosecution of their
common object, broke open the locks of her house, intruded therein, misbehaved with her,
removed her mangalsutra and used obscene language etc. The learned Magistrate heard the
matter and applying the judgement of full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Sukhwasi vs. State
of U.P., 2007 (6) A.L.J. 424, directed the application to be registered as complaint case.
Thereafter, the applicant preferred a revision bearing No.91 of 2022 against the aforesaid
order of the learned Magistrate. The learned revisional court, after hearing both the sides,
dismissed the revision.

4. The revisional court referred to judgement of Allahabad High Court given in Ashok Kumar
vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2022 (1) J.I.C. 449 Allahabad . It further shows that the revisional court
agreed with the view of the trial court that, all the facts of the matter were within the
knowledge of the complainant and there was no particular angle of the incident which
required an investigation by the police.

5. There is, no doubt about the power of the Magistrate that he can direct for registrationof
FIR. This is equally true that such power is not to be exercised in a mechanical or arbitrary
manner. The Magistrate is perfectly within his powers to exercise his discretion and treat the
application as 'complaint' and proceed to follow the procedure prescribed for complaint case.
He is not bound to direct for registration of an FIR merely because an application under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved.

6. The petitioner has utterly failed to point out any ground, which could prompt this Court to
interfere in the matter, in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has failed to give any good reason, factual or legal, which may help this Court
in drawing an inference that any law has been violated.

7. The petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.10.2023/Saif

Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad