The Uttarakhand High Court in, Lt. Colonel (Retd.) Balraj Singh Lamba and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another stated that an FIR that is lodged by concealing the fact that an application u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) has been rejected, cannot be allowed to continue. The court further stated by doing so, the informant made the order of the Magistrate redundant by deceitful means.
Facts
An FIR was filed by the informant against revisionist u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860. The charge sheet was also submitted. In the instant case before filing the FIR, the informant had made an application u/s 156(3) which was rejected by the court on the ground that the application was filed on some oblique motives. The said order was not challenged but a few days later an FIR was filed. The question that arose was whether an FIR could be lodged after the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code.
Contention of Revisionist
It was contended that the informant had filed an application under Section 156(3) which was rejected. That order had attained finality because it was never challenged. After concealing the fact that an application under Section 156(3) of the Code filed by the informant had already been rejected, the informant filed an FIR. It was argued that this is impermissible and it vitiates the entire proceedings.
Contention of Informant
It was contended that the scope of Sections 156(3) and 154 of the Code are quite distinct and the power of police is independent.
Court’s Observation
The Court in this case analysed the provisions of Sections 154 and 156(3) of the Code. The Court stated that an FIR for the mentioned offences could have been registered but the informant, by a design concealing the facts, got the FIR lodged. She concealed the fact that her application under Section 156(3) of the Code was rejected while lodging the FIR. By concealing the order of rejection of her application under Section 156(3) of the Code, the informant got the FIR lodged. By doing so, the informant made the order of the Magistrate redundant by deceitful means. It thus cannot be permitted to continue. The order of the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction had been nullified in the case. The court, therefore, observed that the investigation that follows based on such FIR and proceedings subsequent thereto are vitiated and, the entire proceedings of the case deserved to be quashed.
Case Title: Lt. Colonel (Retd.) Balraj Singh Lamba And Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another
Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2013
Advocate for Revisionist: Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikramaditya Sah
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, Advocate for Respondent 2
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
