As numbered above, the disparaging remarks made by the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order passed by the appellant has given rise to the present appeal.
The allegation made by her was that because of the incident she became unconscious and in the morning she narrated the whole incident to her mother in law Bindi, but she advised her number to disclose the incident to anyone as it was a matter of reputation of the family.
It may be stated that the accused is her father in law.
The case of the respondent No.
14, Saharanpur mentioning therein as to how the incident of rape with her had taken place and praying the learned Magistrate to direct the Officer in charge of Police Station, Nakur, to register her companyplaint and investigate the case against the accused under Section 156 3 of the Code.
The learned Single Judge expressed the view that the appellant had passed the order ignoring all judicial disciplines and had number at all applied her judicial mind and had only referred to some of the judgments of the Allahabad High Court, which were companytrary to the opinion expressed by the Apex Court rendered in many decisions.
3 her father in law had bad eye on her since her marriage.
The allegation made by the respondent No.
As per the report received numbercase was registered regarding the incident narrated by the respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.
It was claimed by the respondent No.
3 she telephoned her mother, who arrived at her in laws place along with Muneer, her brother in law, on a motor cycle but Irshad in the meanwhile had fled away from the village.
The appellant was of the view that the respondent No.
The disparaging remarks made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.
The respondent No.
3 under Section 156 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for short as companyplaint and directing the Registry to present the file before the appellant on August 9, 2009 for recording the statement of the companyplainant, i.e., of Shabnam under Section 200 of the Code.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under The respondent No.
21606 of 2009 while setting aside order dated August 1, 2009, passed by the appellant in case No.
21606 of 2009, decided on September 9, 2009, while setting aside order dated August 1, 2009, passed by the appellant in case No.
The appellant was of the view that the respondent No.
The case projected by the respondent No.
3 i.e. the original companyplainant under Section 200 of the Code.
After going through the order dated August 1, 2009, passed by the appellant, the learned Single Judge expressed the view that the order indicated total number application of mind by the appellant.
The appellant referred to the principles of law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Gulab Chand vs. State of U.P. 2002 Cr.
nil of 2009 titled as Shabnam vs. Irshad directing that the application submitted by the respondent No.
3 was that though she offered resistance, Irshad did number pay any heed and companymitted rape on her.
3 within the ambit of her power under Section 156 3 of the Code and also directed her to pass order for registration of FIR against the erring police officers, who had refused to register the FIR of the respondent No.
On receipt of the application the appellant called for report from the companycerned police station.
The learned Magistrate perused the averments made by the respondent No.
Application No.
nil of 2009 titled as Shabnam vs. Irshad registering the application filed by the respondent No.
Application No.
3 was a divorcee and was residing at her parents house from the date of divorce.
The case of the respondent No.
M. Panchal, J. Leave granted.
3 had filed her own affidavit in support of the case pleaded in the application filed before the appellant and produced a carbon companyy of the application sent by her to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur with its postal registration as well as photocopy of medical certificate.
3 that under the circumstances she had moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur but he had also number taken any action and, therefore, she had filed an application under Section 156 3 of the Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Court No.
The present appeal is filed by the appellant, who is member of judicial service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, for expunging the remarks made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.
3 was acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and was also familiar with the accused and knew the witnesses too.
3 in her application as well as documents annexed to the said application.
But the mother and the brother in law had mentioned that they were number eye witnesses to the incident.
3 is that Irshad, i.e., her father in law came inside her room, caught hold of her with bad intention, scratched her breasts, forcibly pushed cloth in her mouth and forcibly companymitted rape on her.
According to respondent No.
3 was that as her companydition was deteriorating, she was got medically examined in District hospital by her mother and thereafter she had gone to the Police Station, Nakur, but the police had refused to register her FIR.
3 was that in the intervening night of June 18/19, 2009 at about 3 Oclock she was all alone in her room as her husband had gone out and she was sleeping but the doors of the room were kept open due to heat.
3 would be able to produce all the evidence herself.
L.J. 2907, Ram Babu Gupta vs. State of U.P. 2001 43 ACC 50, Chandrika Singh vs. State of U.P. 2007 50 ACC 777 and Sukhwasi S o Hulasi vs. State of U.P. 2007 59 ACC 739 and after taking into companysideration the principles laid down in the above referred to decisions the appellant was of the view that this was number a fit case to be referred to the police for investigation under Section 156 3 of the Code and, therefore, directed that the application submitted by the respondent under Section 156 3 of the Code be registered as companyplaint and further ordered the Registry to present the file before her on August 28, 2009 for recording the statement of the respondent No.
Application No.
According to the respondent No.
The reply mentions that inquiries made by Investigating Officer with the neighbourers of the accused indicated that Respondent No.
3 is wife of one Mustqeem and resides at Village Sayyed Mazra, District Saharanpur with her husband and in laws.
3 invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code by filing Criminal Misc.
The learned Single Judge directed the Registry of the High Court to send a companyy of his judgment to the appellant for her future guidance and also to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur.
The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order dated August 1, 2009, passed by the appellant, observed that the order was a blemish on justice meted out to a married lady who was ravished by her own father in law.
21606 of 2009 and prayed the High Court to quash the order dated August 1, 2009, passed by the appellant and to direct the police to register her I.R. filed against Irshad and to investigate the same as provided under Section 156 3 of the Code.
The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated September 9, 2009 set aside the order dated August 1, 2009, passed by the appellant, and directed the appellant to decide the application of the respondent No.
