ISHWAR DAYAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. This is such a case wherein Special Judge, D. A. A. , Etah has went beyond common sense in refusing the prayer of the appli cant to get the FIR registered under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE brief facts are that Ishwar Dayal along with his wife and brother had gone to his relative's house on 22. 4. 2008 at 5 p. m. His elder daughter Km. Kanchan, younger daughter Km. Malti and other minor children were left behind. On 23. 4. 2008 at 7 a. m. Dara Singh and Muneesh Kumar entered into the house of the applicant Ishwar Dayal armed with country made pistol and abducted Km. Kanchan. On resistance being shown by another younger daughter Km. Malti, she was threatened. THE mouth of Km. Malti was gaged with cloth. THE aforesaid opposite parties No. 2 and 3 also looted the gold ornaments and rupees 50,000/- cash from the house of applicant. When the applicant returned back on 23. 4. 2008 then he was informed about the said incident by the younger daughter Malti. THE applicant approached the father of the one of the accused Dara Singh who in formed him that his daughter will be returned within 2 days and the gold orna ments and cash will also be given. THE applicant was informed by Vinod Kumar that his elder daughter Kanchan was seen along with Dara Singh and Muneesh at Jaswant Nagar Chauraha. Since the daughter of the applicant was abducted and also that the robbery was committed in his house that the applicant tried to lodge the FIR but his FIR was not taken down. Consequently the applicant approached the Special Judge (D. A. A.), Etah, under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. seeking his direction for registration of his FIR and investigation as the recovery of his elder daughter with gold ornaments and the cash amount looted was to be made im mediately. THE said application has been rejected by Special Judge, (D. A. A.) Etah, by his order dated 3. 5. 2008 which has been impugned in this Criminal Misc. Application.

(3.) THIS application is allowed. The impugned order dated 13. 5. 2008 is set aside. The Special Judge, (D. A. A.), Etah, is directed to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction in accordance with law. He is not supposed to exercise discre tionary power in a totally arbitrary manner. Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. has been in corporated to get the offence of cognizable nature registered and investigated. While interpreting a statutory provision the intention of the legislature has to be kept in mind pro bono publico. Interpretation of a statute cannot be done in such a manner which brings injustice to the victim at the hands of law contrary to the legislative intent. Arbitrariness indicates non application of mind and makes im pugned order vulnerable and not tenable in law.