CHHITRARIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising for consideration in this revision is in the Magistrate in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, can simply send the complaint to police for investigation and not for registration of the case.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to this revision are that an incident took place on 17.3.1992 in which severe injuries are said to have been caused to Gyan Chand, Basudeo, Radhey Shyam and Smt. Bhagwan Devi 1 wife of Basudeo by the opposite party No. 2 and six 2 State of U.P. & Anr. others who are said to have carried lathi, Danda and Pharsa and made an attempt to dispossess the revisionists from plot No. 303 situated in Village Pali, P.S. Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra. A First Information Report was lodged on the same day and it was registered at crime No. 74 of 1992 under Sections 147/148/323/324/504, I.P.C. at I.P.C. Fatehpur Sikri, Agra. After investigation, section 308, I.P.C. was also added later on. A cross-version of the incident was given by the opposite party No. 2 in his complaint date if 28.4.1992 filed in the court of V. AddI. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. In this complaint, it was alleged that a report about the incident was sent by post to Senior Superintendent of Police on 17.3.1992 but no action had been taken by the police against the offenders. On the said complaint dated 28.4.1992, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order whereby he directed on 29.4 .1992 the station officer of Police-Station Fatehpur Sikri to register and investigate the case under section 156(3), Cr. P.C. and submit a report. It is this order which has been challenged in the present revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionists that the learned Magistrate cannot issue a direction to the police under section 156(3), Cr. P.C., to register a case and then investigate. According to the learned counsel of the revisionists, the learned Magistrate can only issue a direction for investigation in exercise of his power vested under section 156(3), Cr. P.C. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the revision ists relied upon the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana. In. this reported case, it has been helli that the Magistrate can Send the complaint to police for investigation but he cannot direct the police for registration of the case in exercise of his power under section 156(3), Cr. P.C. 11 has been further observed in the said case that this view is based on the observations of the Honble Supreme Court made in Bevara Palli Lakshminarayan Reddy v. Narayana Reddy & Ors. However, no such observations appear to have been made by the Honble Supreme Court in the case reported in 1976 S.C.C. (Criminal) 380 (supra). What the Honble Supreme Court has laid down in this case is that an order made under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C., is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise plenary powers of investigation under section 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under section 156 and ends with a report or chargesheet under section 173, Cr. P.C. However, the question which was decided by the It HonTble Supreme Court in the said case was whether in view of clause (a) of the first proviso to section 202(1), Cr. P.C. a Magistrate who receives a complaint disclosing an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session, is debarred from sending the same to the police for investigation under section 156(3), Cr. P.C. Accordingly, the aforesaid case which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionists is of little help to him, particularly, when no cogent reasons have been assigned for the view taken therein.