High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Dukhana Devi v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 13820 of 2006  RD-AH 20690 (7 December 2006)
(Court no. 48)
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13820 of 2006
Dukhana Devi W/o late Chhotey Lal,
R/o Village Bandgohana Khurd,
Police Station Kaundhiyara,
District Allahabad. .... ...... Petitioner/Applicant.
1. State of U.P.
2. Station Officer, Police Station Kaundhiyara,
3. Shailendra Kumar son of Amar Bahadur.
4. Amar Bahadur .
5. Virendra Kumar son of Amar Bahadur
All R/o Village Chakpurey Miya Khurd,
Police Station Industrial Area
District Allahabad...... Respondents.
Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J
1. In a matter relating to an offence under Section 498-A, the Magistrate passed an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that the case be registered as a complaint case.
2. The grouse of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that the Magistrate should have directed the police to investigate the case, and the case should have been registered as a police case. A revision on this ground before the Sessions Judge had earlier been dismissed.
3. I have heard Sri Rakesh Prasad counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Maurya Addl. Government for the State.
4. The Law on this subject has already been clarified elaborately in the case of Masuriyadin alias Nate and others Vs. Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad 2002(44) ,A.C.C. 248.
5. None of these pre-requisites which may justify the registration of a case as a police case, are available here. No Forensic Examination by a medical or Ballistic Expert, or any other, of that kind is needed here, about which it may be said that it will be difficult for the complainant to procure such evidence. No recovery is also to be made for which police help may be needed.
6. The counsel for the petitioner argued that in case the matter is registered as a complaint, the complainant will have to bear the cost of summoning the witnesses and other expenses, which will be an unjust burden on the complainant. The argument is too shallow to become acceptable.
7. The mere fact that the petitioner will have to spend some money in the conduct of her case is not a justifiable ground for issuing a direction, about a case being registered as a police case. Even the amount which the complainant will have to spend, cannot be deemed to be so exorbitant, as to cause concern, to the petitioner.
8. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to following cases:-
(i) (2001(1) JIC 942 (All) 1) Dinesh Chandra & others Vs. State of U.P.
(ii) (2003 (47) ACC,140) Ram Anuj Dubey Vs. State of U.P.
(iii) 2001 Crl.L.J.3363 Ram Babu Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. & others.
9. None of these cases is relevant for the purposes of the present case, and they deal, with entirely different matters.
10. The argument of expenditure in the case propounded by the counsel for the petitioner finds no echo in any of the aforesaid cases.
11. Petition dismissed.
Dt: 7TH December, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.