JASWANT SINGH Vs. TRILOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dated 6-5-2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (Mr. Brijendra Kumar Shastri) in a criminal revision arising out of order dated 15-1-2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg (Ms. Rashmi Mandavi) in an unregistered criminal complaint case. By order dated 15-1-2013 (Annexure P-2), the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class has ordered for registration of First Information Report in the matter and for filing a complete report after investigation. Facts of the case, as projected, are thus:

(2.) Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a Magistrate is empowered either to proceed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. or to proceed under the provisions contained in Chapter 15 of the Cr.P.C. and to direct investigation but only in accordance with the procedure and upon fulfillment of conditions enumerated in Section 202, Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the complainant/respondent No. 1 had made a report before Police Station Chhawni, Bhilai and after investigation Police Station Chhawni found that no cognizable offence was made out against the petitioners. Therefore, complainant/respondent No. 1 took the matter to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg having jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg for registration of First Information Report in furtherance of the said complaint made by the complainant/respondent No. 1 is wholly illegal, baseless and erroneous and order of the Magistrate for registration of the FIR is wholly without jurisdiction. Registration of the FIR in pursuance of the above order of the Magistrate is liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai and others v. State of Gujarat and others, 2009 6 SCC 576, and Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2008 2 SCC 409.

(3.) Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 2 argued that Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to investigate into the offence. The impugned order passed by the Magistrate is in accordance with law. He further argued that a Magistrate has power to direct investigation into cognizable cases under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. A Magistrate is empowered under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to send a complaint to appropriate police station for investigation. He further argued that once such direction is given under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C., the police is required to investigate into that complaint and on completion of investigation to submit a report in accordance with Section 173(2), Cr.P.C.