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


Smt. Rafia v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 236 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 505 (9 January 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).




Smt. Rafia.............................................Petitioner.


State of U.P  and others............................Respondents.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

As agreed between the parties, the writ petition is decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner alleging that the contesting respondent committed rape. The Magistrate passed an order on 13.10.2006 treating the application as a complaint and fixed a date for recording statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The order was challenged in revision, and the same has been dismissed summarily by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar on 23.11.2006. Both the orders are impugned in the instant writ petition.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner has annexed copy of the injury report to show that she received injuries and she was examined in district hospital Muzaffarnagar. The Magistrate was not correct in declining to get the matter investigated in view of the injuries and specific allegations.

In the cases of Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another 2005 (2) ACR page 1241, Ram Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others 2006 (55) ACC 763, Sukhveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2006 (55) ACC 889, Govind and others Vs. State of U.P. and others2003 Current Bail Cases page 934 (D.B.), it has been laid down that it is responsibility of the Magistrate to direct the police to follow the mandate of law whenever the Magistrate is approached by an aggrieved person with a prayer that the police has refused to register the F.I.R. in a cognizable offence, and the Magistrate is required to look into such a prayer with a view to determine whether any cognizable offence is disclosed or not? if it does, he has no option but to direct the police to register and investigate the matter.

In view of the principles laid down by the various Courts, the orders dated 13.10.2006 passed by the A.C.J.M. I, Muzaffarnagar, and 23.11.2006 passed by the revisional court are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Magistrate to examine it afresh and pass appropriate orders whether a cognizable offence appears to have been committed or not?

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is finally disposed of.

Dt. 9.1.2007



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.