SATYENDER TEWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner has prayed this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 & 2 to register a case against Respondents No. 3 to 8 and has also prayed for setting aside order dated 21st June, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri J.P. Aryan in Criminal Revision No. 39/2009.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that Petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for getting an FIR registered against Respondents No. 3 to 8. The learned MM vide his order dated 27th November, 2009 declined to send the complaint of Petitioner for registration of FIR and instead asked the Petitioner to lead evidence before him. Against this order, the Petitioner preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide order dated 21st June, 2010 and the learned ASJ observed that under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate has not to act in a mechanical manner and send every complaint made before him to police for registration of FIR and this power has to be exercised judiciously by the learned MM and in those cases where allegations are not such that there should be necessity of police investigation and the complainant was in possession of the evidence to prove his allegations, the Magistrate can ask him to examine his witnesses before him. The learned ASJ observed that in the case of Petitioner he could examine himself on oath and could examine supporting evidence which he desired to adduce. He therefore declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned MM.

(3.) The contention of the Petitioner is that once Petitioner filed a complaint before the SHO, SHO is bound to register an FIR irrespective of the fact that whether the allegations made in the complaint were truthful or false and he (SHO) is bound to start investigation after registration of FIR. Similarly, when a person makes an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure before MM, MM has no option but to refer complaint to SHO for registration of FIR. He submitted that in this case he initially filed a complaint before the learned MM under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, this complaint was dismissed on the ground that he had not even approached the police for registration of FIR. He then approached police for registration of FIR. FIR was not registered. He again approached learned MM and learned MM instead of sending his complaint for registration of FIR asked him to lead evidence. He submitted that the learned MM should have directed for registration of FIR.