SMT. MONA PANWAR versus THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 02-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 2 S.C.R. 413 
SMT. MONA PANWAR 
v. 
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT 
ALLAHABAD THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2011} 
FEBRUARY 02, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Judicial restraint: Disparaging remarks normally should 
A 
B 
not be made against the members of the lower judiciary -
C 
Higher courts should observe restraint - In the instant case, 
application was filed u/s.156(3),Cr.P.C. by a woman alleging 
that her father-in-law had committed rape on her and the 
police had refused to register her FIR - Appellant-judicial 
officer passeci an order registering her application uls. 156(3), 
D 
Cr.P.C. as complaint and directing registry to present the file 
before her for recording the statement of the complainant u/ 
$.200, Cr.P.C. - Single Judge of High Court held that the 
appellant had done the gravest injustice to the complainant 
and she being a lady magistrate ought to have thought about E 
the nature of crime committed by the accused and the order 
was passed ignoring all judicial disciplines and without 
application of judicial mind - Appellant sought expunging of 
remarks - Held: Disparaging remarks made by the Single 
Judge of the High Court were not justified at all - While 
F 
passing the order registering application u/s.156(3), Cr.P.C. 
as complaint, the appellant had considered the report called 
from the concerned police station wherein it was mentioned 
that no case was registered on the basis of complaint - At the 
time of filing of application before the appellant, the G 
complainant had filed her own affidavit, copy of the application 
sent by her to the Senior Superintendent of Police with its 
postal registration and photocopy of the medical certificate -
If on a reading of a complaint, appellant found that the · 
413 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A a/legations therein disclosed cognizable offence and 
fo1warding of the complaint to the police for investigation ul 
s. 156(3), Cr. P. C. would not be conducive to justice then there 
was no error on her part in adopting the course suggested in 
s.200, Cr.P.C. - The judicial discretion exercised by appellant 
B was in consonance with the scheme postulated by the Code 
and was neither arbitrary nor perverse - Disparaging remarks 
made by the Single Judge of the High Court quashed - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.156(3), 200. 
C 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.156(3) - Power of 
Magistrate under - Discussed. 
The appellant was a member of judicial service of the 
State of Uttar Pradesh. An application under Section 
156(3), Cr.P .C. was filed by respondent no.3 before the 
D appellant. The grievance of respondent no.3 was that her -
father-in-law had committed rape on her and the police 
had refused to register her FIR. She had also filed an 
application before the Senior Superintendent of Police 
but he had also not taken any action, and, therefore, she 
E filed the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. before 
the appellant. In the application the details of the incident 
of rape were mentioned and prayer was made for 
direction to the Officer-in-charge of Police Station to 
register her complaint and investigate the case against 
F the accused under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. 
The appellant passed an order on August 1, 2009 
registering the application filed by complainant-
respondent no. 3 under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. as 
G complaint and directing the Registry to present the file 
before her on August 9, 2009 for recording the statement 
of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. 
Respondent No.3 filed the petition under Section 482 
H Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated August 1, 2009 
MONA PANWAR v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. 415 
AT ALLAHABAD & ORS. 
passed by the appellant and for direction to the police to A 
register FIR and to investigate the same as provided 
under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. The Single Judge of the 
High Court was of the view that the appellant had done 
the gravest injustice to respondent No. 3 and the 
appellant being a lady magistrate ought to have thought B ·. 
about the outcome of ravishing the chastity of daughter-
in-law by her father-in-law and the nature of crime 
committed by the accused. The Single ~udge noticed that 
the incident had occurred inside the room and there was 
no mention of any witness in application filed by the C 
respondent but in the order passed by the appellant it 
was noted that the victim was in the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.