Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Surya Kumar Shukla v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5737 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 18473 (29 November 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Criminal Revision No.5737 of 2006

Surya Kumar Shukla Versus State of U.P.

Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.

The revisionist has challenged the order dated 31.8.2006 passed by M.M. Court no.5, Kanpur Nagar on the application filed by Surya Kumar Shukla under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. levelling allegations of embezzlement against the alleged malefactor Arun Kumar Bajpai. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. definitely discloses commission of a cognizable offence. In view of the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court reported in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT Delhi) AIR 2006 SC 1322, the impugned order cannot be sustained because it was the duty of the Metropolitan Magistrate to direct registration of F.I.R. once the cognizable offences was disclosed. He is not given any reason why he has refused the prayer for registration of F.I.R. This matter has been exhaustively dealt with in the case of Masuman vs. State of U.P. Allahabad Daily Judgement 2006 (8) Vol, 9 page 377,

Filing of a compliant is the right of the victim. If victim does not want to prosecute the accused persons in a complaint case, the Magistrate cannot compel him to file a compliant. The victim has approached the Magistrate under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. for seeking a direction to the police to register the F.I.R. of an embezzlement of more than Rs. one lac. If the victim has got two options to prosecute the accused persons in two different forums, it is his choice to prosecute the accused in the forum, which he desires best. Further the offence disclosed commission of embezzlement. If the investigation will not be ordered then how the embezzlement will be deciphered is not understandable. The Magistrate has given no reason as to why the investigation is not required. Further the Apex Court has said in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others ; 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. & others Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh 2003 (2) JIC 126 that if cognizable offence is disclosed then the F.I.R. must be registered and must be investigated.

In view of the law laid own by the Apex Court, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.8.2006 passed by M.M. Court no.5, Kanpur Nagar on the application filed by Surya Kumar Shukla under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the M.M. Court no.5, Kanpur Nagar to re-decide the application of the revisionist in accordance with law.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.