SMT. PRITI AND 3 OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5118 of 2024

Smt. Priti And 3 Others
                                                           .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)              :   Vivek Kumar Maheshwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :   G.A., Ghan Shyam Das

Court No. - 45
                 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Maheshwari, learned counsel for the revisionists,
learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for O.P.
No. 2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Revisionist Smt. Priti and three others have approached this court by
means of present criminal revision on the ground regarding impropriety and
validity of the order dated 02,09.2024 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate (herein after referred as Jurisdictional Magistrate), Court No. 1,
Mazaffarnagar in Compliant Case No. 2439/9 of 2018 wherein the
Jurisdictional Magistrate rejected the application under Section 198 Cr.P.C.
filed by the revisionists.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that the son of complainant is an Army
man and on his behalf the complainant filed a complaint which was
entertained by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Statement of complainant under
section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses were recorded under Section
202 Cr.P.C. and revisionists were summoned by the Jurisdiction Magistrate
invoking its power contained under Section 304 of Cr.P.C. In pursuance of
that case statements of witnesses under Section 244 Cr.P.C. were recorded,
the charges were framed against the revisionists. and statements under
Section 246 Cr.P.C. are in constitution. Thereafter the revisionists moved
the present application with a prayer to drop the proceedings for want of
compliance under Section 198(i)(b) read with Section 198(4) of Cr.P.C. The
Jurisdictional Magistrate while rejecting the application of the revisionists
                                                          CRLR No. 5118 of 2024
                                2


imposing Rs. 1,000/- cost observed that bar of Section 198 Cr.P.C. is only
for cognizance and the present matter is not at the stage of cognizance. But
the cross examination of the witnesses are going on.

5. Feeling aggrieved from that order this criminal revision has been preferred
on the ground that though the provisions contained in Section 198(i)(b) and
198(4) Cr.P.C. are mandatory but ignoring the mandatory provisions the
impugned order has been passed, therefore, it is liable to be set aside by this
court invoking its power.

6.Learned counsel for the revisionists urged that though the provisions under
Section 198(i)(b) read with Section 198(4) of Cr.P.C. are mandatory.
Without obtaining a written certificate of Commanding Officer, no such
complaint can be filed but without any such certificate the present
proceeding is going on. It is thus submitted that the impugned order is bad in
law and is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. representing for the State as well as learned
counsel for O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposed the present criminal revision.
Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 urged that in the matter after conclusion of
proceeding under Section 244 Cr.P.C. the charges against the revisionists
have been framed and cross examination of witnesses under section 244
Cr.P.C. is going on, when a charge in any criminal proceeding is framed, no
proceeding can be dropped by other way except passing final judgement
either in acquittal or conviction after trial.

8. It is thus contended that the present revision has no force at all, it is
devoid on merit, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the revisionist drew
the attention of the court towards the provision contained under Section 245
(2) Cr.P.C. and tried to substantiate his submissions that the court has power
to drop the proceeding discharging the revisionist due to the words used
under Section 145(2) Cr.P.C. that at any previous stage. But this court is not
inclined with submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists because the
words used in Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. are itself clear that such provisions is
applicable before stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. but not after that.

10. In view of above, the present criminal revision is devoid of merit and
liable to be dismissed.
                                                                                 CRLR No. 5118 of 2024
                                                                       3


                                    11. It is accordingly dismissed.

                                    May 7, 2026
                                    RPD
                                                                           (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad