SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Smt. Santosh Kumari, widow of Raja Ram, resident of Milavali, P. S. Kotwali Dehat, District Etah has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with the prayer that the impugned order dated 21-9-2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Misc. Case No. 387 of 2006 be quashed. By the impugned order her prayer seeking order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. for registration of her FIR for offence of murder of her husband in a fake and false encounter by the police was refused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah and her said application was ordered to be registered as a complaint case was passed by the CJM concerned and complaint case No. 6130 of 2006 was registered treating the application under Section 156 (3) as a complaint.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah being Misc. Application No. 387 of 2006 on 24-8- 2006. Allegations which were levelled in the said application were that the sister of applicant namely Smt. Rajeshwari, wife of Badan Pal resident of village Pahloi was very sick. On 18-8-2006 applicant Smt. Santosh Kumari alongwith her husband Raja Ram (Deceased), Jeth Shiv Prakash alias Pappu and Dewar Ashok was going to village Pahloi to look for her sister Rajeshwari. When they reached between village Pahloi and Taipur near brick-kiln of Surendra at 3 p. m. then the named alleged accused persons Station Officer Pawan Singh of PS Siddhpura, S. I. Sripal THEnua, S. I. Ajant Singh and constables Sarnam Singh, Rajendra Kumar, all of police station Siddhpura District Etah approached them in a jeep near the brick-kiln and after surrounding them forcibly abducted Raja Ram, husband of the applicant in their jeep and carried him to the police station Siddhpura. This incident was witnessed by Shiv Prakash alias Pappu and other persons accompanying the applicant. THE witnesses tried to get Raja Ram freed from the clutches of the police but their endeavour failed. After the said abduction when the applicant accompanied by her Jeth and Dewar reached at the police station Siddhpura for knowing the where abouts of her husband, she was informed by the above police personnels that Raja Ram is to be interrogated for something and later on he will be released and she can take him back next day morning. THE applicant on the said assurance came back to her house. Next day in the morning when the applicant went to bring her husband back from the police station Siddhpura, she was informed by the aforesaid police personnels that her husband Raja Ram was set free in the morning itself. When the husband of the applicant Raja Ram did not reach the house, then the applicant alongwith her family members searched for her husband but he was not traced out. On 20-8-2006 she came to know that the police of police station Siddhpura on the aforesaid date 18-8-2006 (the date on which Raja Ram was abducted) has shot dead a person near village Sunahara Gaon by showing a fake and false encounter. She was also shown the newspaper in which the photograph of her husband was published. Applicant then came to know that her husband has been shot dead by showing false encounter by the police. On such information the applicant went to the police station Siddhpura on 23-8-2006 and requested for action in the fake encounter case but nothing was done. She was threatened for her life by above police personnels who abused her filthly and pushed her out. Since the husband of the applicant was murdered in a fake and false encounter by above named police personnels and because her FIR was not to be registered by the police of PS Siddhpura the applicant Smt. Santosh Kumari dispatched a written application to S. S. P. Etah through courier but nothing happened on her said application also.

(3.) ON the said date 21-9-2006, Chief Judicial Magistrate Etah passed a detailed order and in the aforesaid order he observed that he had called for report from the concerned police station who had informed him that husband of the applicant had died in cross firing on the spot on 18-8-2006, regarding which entry was made at Rapat No. 45 at 7. 05 p. m. He also mentioned that it was reported by the police that S. H. O. , Ajant Singh constable Ram Prasad Ghoomari were going on picket duty and when at 7. 40 hours they reached at Village Sunahara, then from dense bushes, some people came out and fired at the police personnels, as a result of which constable Rajendra Kumar sustained injury on his head. It was also mentioned in the order that by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that in the said incident, husband of the applicant died in right of private defence regarding which crime No. 138/06 under Section 393/307 I. P. C. and crime No. 139/06 under Section 25 Arms Act was registered at the police station. By observing thus the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer of the applicant to direct the police to register the FIR and instead treated her application as a complaint case and registered her application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. as a complaint. Chief Judicial Magistrate had also observed that the applicant is in the knowledge of the facts and nothing is to be recovered and nobody is to be arrested and there is nothing for the police to collect during investigation. Chief Judicial Magistrate also made reference of judgment of this Court recorded in Gulab Chandra Upadhyay v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2002 (1) J. I. C. 853 (All), Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U. P. , 2001 (1) JIC 678 (All) : 2001 (43) ACC 50 and Joseph Madhuri alias Vishwaswarenanda v. Swami Sachhidanand Harisakshi, 2001 (3) Crimes 384. He took cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr. P. C. after converting application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. into a complaint and directed the applicant to lead evidence under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and fixed 3-10-2006 for recording statement under Section 200 Cr. P. C. It is this order which is under challenge in this application.