Allahabad High Court
SMT. MANJU UPADHYAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The High Court held that the Special Judge’s order was lawful and not perverse, and therefore refused to set it aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Manju Upadhyay, filed a Section 482 CrPC application to set aside an order dated 04‑07‑2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge under the POCSO Act) which had treated her Section 156(3) CrPC application for FIR registration as a complaint. She alleged that her three minor daughters were subjected to vulgar remarks by the respondents on 16‑01‑2024 and that the police refused to register an FIR, necessitating judicial direction. The respondents contended that no such incident occurred, that there was pre‑existing enmity, and that the petition was an attempt to harass them. The Special Judge, after considering the material, justified treating the matter as a complaint and proceeded to record statements. The High Court examined the reasoning and found no illegality, perversity or abuse of jurisdiction in the Special Judge’s order, and consequently refused the petition to set aside the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the Special Judge erred in treating the Section 156(3) CrPC application as a complaint instead of directing registration of an FIR.
- Whether the High Court can intervene under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the Special Judge’s order.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- FIR registration
- complaint vs cognizable offence
- High Court jurisdiction
- POCSO Act
- Harassment allegation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26943 of 2024
Smt. Manju Upadhyay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and
learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
setting aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jhansi, in Misc.
Case No.265 of 2024 (CNR No. UPJS-01-003318-2024) (Smt. Manju
Upadhyay Vs. Mohnish Sahu @ Mikki & Others), Police Station Kotwali,
District Jhansi by which application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. treated
as complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and
opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are neighbors and the applicant have three
daughters aged about 10 years, 15 years and 13 years. On 16.01.2024 at
about 9:00 p.m. the children of the applicant were going to attend the Grih
Pravesh and birthday ceremony where the opposite party No.2 was also
present in an intoxication condition and started vulgar talk and vulgar
indication towards her daughters. The daughters came at the house and
narrated the entire incident to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant
approach the near police station for registering the F.I.R. but the police
has refused to register the same. Thereafter the applicant filed an
application under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. in the Special Court but the same
A482 No. 26943 of 2024
2
was treated as complaint case. As per the facts of this application a
cognizable case is made out and the FIR should have been registered. The
learned Special Judge has committed illegality in passing of the impugned
order. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and
infirmity and is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 as well as the
learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted
that the learned Special Judge has committed no illegality in passing the
impugned order. No such incident committed by opposite party Nos. 2 &
3 on 16.1.2024. There is previous enmity between the applicant and
opposite party Nos.2 & 3 and applicant has filed this complaint just to
harass the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3. Therefore, the present application is
liable to be dismissed.
6. From the facts of the present case, it transpires that the applicant had
moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction for
registration of an F.I.R. against opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The learned
Special Judge, upon consideration of the allegations and the material
brought on record, treated the said application as a complaint case and
proceeded in accordance with law by fixing the matter for recording of
the statements of the complainant and the witnesses. A perusal of the
impugned order shows that the learned Special Judge has given a detailed
reasoning for treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a
complaint case instead of directing registration of the F.I.R.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not
find any illegality, perversity in the impugned order. Therefore, the prayer
for setting aside the same is hereby refused.
8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
March 18, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…