Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22796 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3200 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Ministry Lko. U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Prakash Sharma,Sunny Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunny Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 2. By means of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now 528 BNSS) the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 28.9.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow thereby rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 6.1.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge /Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.2, Lucknow rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.9.2017. 3. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with opposite party No.3 on 11.5.2013 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It has been stated that opposite party No3. had extra marital relation ship and also left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents. It is the case of the petitioner that he tried his best to see that opposite party No.3 resides with him in her matrimonial home and to this extent he has also filed case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act but opposite party No.3 did not reside with him while on the date of the incident i.e. 17.3.2015 at 12.00 PM she accompanied by her father, mother, relatives and certain other persons forcibly entered into the house of the petitioner and abused them and threatened them to implicate in false cases. 4. The complainant supported the complaint with the statement under Section 200 and witnesses were also produced. The petitioner had filed a complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow that the contents of the complaint were duly supported by evidence and statement under Section 200 and other witnesses have also deposed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. but the Chief Judicial magistrate had rejected the said complaint holding that the facts as narrated were not possible and the incident as narrated was improbable considering the allegations. He has further recorded the fact that the wife in all probability would not leave her matrimonial home unless mental and physical torture or demand of dowry is meted out to her and only to prevent any action on their part that the present complaint has been filed and accordingly rejected the same. 5. Revision was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.9.2017 which has also been rejected . The revisional court has also considered the entire facts and the arguments submitted by the petitioner and did not find any infirmity in the order of the Additional Chief Judicial magistrate and accordingly rejected the revision by means of the impugned order dated 6.1.2025 and both the orders have been assailed before this Court in the present proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the arguments raised before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as revisional court. It has been submitted that mere fact that that allegations has been made for false implication but there was sufficient material to indicate that the incident had taken place and accordingly first information report deserves to be registered. 7. Considering the provisions of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. it is noticed that it is the discretionary power vested with the Magistrate and on finding being satisfied about commission of cognizable offence he can either direct registration of first information report or treat it to be a complaint. On the inquiry conducted and after considering the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. he was of the opinion that the contents of the complaint are not plausible and has rejected the same. He has further found that the petitioner had approached this Court on previous occasion by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.562 of 2018 which has been disposed of on 6.2.2018. It seems that same criminal proceedings have been initiated by opposite party No.3 against which the petitioner had approached this Court seeking the same remedy from this Court whose details of the compliant were neither indicated in the petition nor were clear from the orders and this Court after perusing the impugned orders as well as argument did not find any ground for interference. Considering that the discretion was duly exercised by the Magistrate where he has considered the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and was of the view that the questions of facts as narrated are highly improbable. 8. Before this Court also we find that in all probabilities merely to prevent the proceedings about the incident that the complaint has been filed. The other argument which the petitioner has raised is that caste related words have been used and threatening extended by the opposite party but neither the words used by the private respondent have been intimated nor any other witness nor any independent witness was present on the spot. We find that both the orders of the trial court as well as revisional court have correctly decided the complaint. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.4.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench