S PANGAJAM Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above petition is filed for the relief as stated therein.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 465 r/w 34 and 471, I.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused has forged the signature of the petitioner in certain documents and false documents have been created and the civil suits are filed by the respective parties. In the meanwhile, since the respondent police has not initiated any action, the petitioner has approached the learned Magistrate to order for necessary investigation by the respondent police and accordingly, an order was passed on 3.10.2002 under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C, directing the respondent police to conduct the investigation. Subsequently, the persons, against whom the complaint was lodged, have approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur for grant of Anticipatory Bail in Crl.M.P. No. 3522 of 2002, wherein it was reported by the learned Public Prosecutor that there was no case pending as against the petitioners therein and no crime number was assigned. In the light of the above statement, the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur has dismissed the petition for Anticipatory Bail, but however, observed as follows:

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the learned Magistrate has passed an order under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., directing the respondent police to conduct the investigation. If such an order is passed, it is mandatory on the part of the police to register a case and conduct the investigation. In this connection, it is useful to refer the decision of the Apex Court in Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2001 Crl.L.J. 954, wherein it is observed as hereunder: