SUMER KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 18.12.1999 passed on Misc. Application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not required to assess the evidence at the time of disposal of the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If a prima facie case is made out to show that some offence has been committed by the accused, the learned Magistrate should have passed the order directing the police to investigate the crime. Even in the absence of direction to register the case, the police is bound to formally register the case and then investigate the same. The proper course for Magistrate is that if any prima facie case showing the commission of offence is made out, then a direction should be issued under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the police to register a case treating the application as an F.I.R. and then investigate the same. It has not been done in this case, although the complaint makes out a prima facie case. In Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P. and Anr. : 2001 (1) ACR 586 (SC):, 2001 (2) SCC 81, it was held by the Supreme Court that: