RANJU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Ranju Devi has preferred instant revision against order dated 10 -7 -2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (D.A.A.) Kanpur Dehat in Misc. Application No. Nil of 2006 whereby application moved under Section 156 (3) of Cr.PC, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar was rejected.

(2.) HEARD Sri Prashant Kumar Singh learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA and have gone through the record. Record shows that revisionist Smt. Ranju Devi moved application against 13 persons including four ladies under Section 156(3) Cr.PC containing the fact that Crime No. 222/06 under Section 308 IPC was registered against her husband Rajendra Singh. Later on the case was converted under Section 304 IPC. Her husband surrendered in the Court of C.J.M. Kanpur Dehat on 29 -4 -2006. It is said that on 1 -6 -2005 revisionist 2 to 14 went to her residence looted Rs.20,000/ -cash, ornaments worth Rs.40,000/ -, took away 2 buffaloes, 2 goats, and 10 quintals wheat etc. Many persons witnessed the occurrence. She went to lodge FIR at Police Station Ghatampur, it was not written, then she moved application to the S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar but no action was taken. Thereafter she moved application under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC which was rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (D.A.A.) Kanpur Dehat, hence this revision.

(3.) IT has been held in 1976 SCC (Crl.) 507, Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors., by Hon'ble the Apex Court that where the allegation made in the complaint are patently absurd or are inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or the discretion of the Magistrate is based on no evidence. The prayer for summoning the accused can be rejected. In AIR 1992 SC 1815, Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, it has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that relevant fact and circumstances should be considered before issuing the process. Process issued mechanically on the basis of complaint filed as vendetta to harass persons deserves to be quashed because judicial process would not be an instrument of oppression of needless harassment.