Conversion Of Plea U/S 156 (3) CrPC Into A Complaint Isn't An Interlocutory Order; Revision Against It Maintainable: Allahabad HC

The court also added that such an order of the magistrate cannot be challenged in a plea moved under Section 482 CrPC as an alternative remedy of filing a revision under section 397 CrPC is available to the aggrieved party.

The bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma observed thus while dismissing a 482 CrPC plea moved by one Ruchi Mittal praying to set aside the order of the ACJM-I, Gautam Budh Nagar treating her Section 156(3) CrPC plea as a complaint case.

“...(this court) is of the opinion that a proceeding under Section 482 CrPC against the impugned order is not maintainable and the applicant should have preferred a revision before the revisional court,” the bench said as it gave her the liberty to move an appropriate revision plea.

The case in brief

Essentially, the petitioner has disputes with her husband and in-laws (opposite parties) and several cases are pending between them. Now, last year she moved a 156 (3) plea before the Magistrate alleging the commission of a cognizable offence against the opposite parties and sought registration of an FIR.

However, instead of passing the order for investigation in the case, the Magistrate treated the application as a complaint.

Challenging that very order, she moved the instant 482 CrPC plea before the High Court arguing that converting Section 156(3) CrPC into a complaint would not meet the ends of justice and since the opposing parties are advocates, she won’t be able to prosecute the complaint.

However, the AGA appearing for the state argued that if an application under Section 156(3) CrPC has been rejected or it has been converted into a complaint, the aggrieved party can prefer revision under Section 397 CrPC and not a plea under Section 482 CrPC.

In this regard, the AGA relied upon the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in the case of Atul Pandey @ Param Pragyan Pandey Vs. State of UP and another, 2021 LawSuiut (All) 603.

Court’s observations

Having heard the parties and taking into account the circumstances of the case, the Court noted that in the Atul Pandey case (supra) it was held that an order of magistrate treating S. 156 (3) CrPC plea as a complaint can’t be challenged in 482 CrPC plea, and that such orders can be challenged by filing a revision under section 397 Cr.P.C.

Agreeing with this view, the Court opined that a proceeding under Section 482 CrPC against the impugned order is not maintainable and the applicant should have preferred a revision before the revisional court.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Sunil Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Bhanu Prakash Singh, Vijay Prakash Mishra

Case title - Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26037 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 11

Click Here To Read/Download Order