SUNITA PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad whereby the application of the revisionist under section 156(3) Cr.P.C for the registration and investigation of the criminal case, has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the revisionist Smt Suneeta Panchal moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad against R.K. Singh S.O. Police Station Modinagar and other unknown police officials with the request for registration and investigation of the Criminal Case. The facts mentioned in the application, in brief were that on 16.1.2010 at about 9:00 P.M. S.O. Modinagar R.K. Singh along with some other police officials trespassed into her house. The Station Officer assaulted the complainant/revisionist as she declined to disclose the whereabouts of her husband, a nominated accused in the murder case. Further that the police officials destroyed the house-hold articles and also snatched away cash and valuable articles from the house. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the police station and after being assaulted, she was challaned in a false case under Section 216 IPC bearing crime no. 39 of 2010. After getting bail in that case, she was released on 3.2.2010 and thereafter she moved an application before the CJM, Ghaziabad with the request for registration of the criminal case. The application was supported by an affidavit. Having received the application, the Magistrate summoned the injury reports of the present revisionist and other persons allegedly assaulted, from district jail Ghaziabad. The report was also called for, from the police station concerned. The police report revealed that Dinesh Panchal, the husband of the present revisionist and his son along with three others had murdered Sunil Kumar by firing on him. The report was lodged on 16.1.2010 at 8.30 P.M. The background for the commission of the muder was also disclosed that the brother of Sunil Kumar namely Arun Kumar was earlier murdered by Sandeep Panchal, the other son of the revisionist. This case ended in conviction of the accused. Thereafter a threat was extended by Sandeep Panchal, the son of the revisionist to the complainant Sunil Kumar for compromising the case. Since Sunil Kumar declined, Sandeep Panchal along with his associates made a murderous assault on him on 13.7.2006. In this case the accused persons were convicted for a sentence of four years each along with the stipulation of fine. For this case Sandeep Panchal the son of the complainant revisionist is serving the sentence. Lateron, on 16.1.2010, Dinesh Panchal the husband of the complainant revisionist along with his sons joined by others murdered Sunil for which the murder case was registered on 16.1.2010. It was also reported that with this background mentioned above, when the police made a raid in the house of Sunita Panchal in the intervening night of 17/18.1.2010, Sunita Panchal was arrested for harbouring the offenders and crime no. 39 of 2010 under section 216 was registered and she was sent to jail. In order to take revenge from the police party the present false case has been registered.

(3.) Having received this report, the learned Magistrate rejected the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C by the impugned order giving rise to the present revision.