RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. This revision has been filed by a proposed accused against an order under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. It Is an order under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. which is a pre-cognizance order. The Magistrate has not made up any mind against anybody. The Magistrate has only looked into the application to find out a cognizable offence being disclosed or not? He had directed the police to follow the mandate of law as is spelt out by the Apex Court in many of the judgments including case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. , 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, as well as Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhari, 1993 SCC (Cr.) 36 and Union of India v. W. N. Chadha, 1993 SCC (Cr) 1171. Nobody is an accused at that stage. Further under Section 397 Cr. P. C. only a 'proceeding' can be challenged and the order passed in a proceedings is subject to revisional power. So far as proposed accused is concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. no 'proceeding' has taken place in his respect. This has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Amar Nath and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. , 1977 SCC (Cr.) 585. Since no proceedings has taken place in respect of the present revisionist he cannot raise any grievance. Moreover, in the above case of W. N. Chadha in paragraph 98 the Apex Court has been please to observe thus: (98) If prior notice and an opportunity of hearing are to be given to an accused In every criminal case before taking any action against him, such a procedure would frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and make the provisions of law relating to the investigation as lifeless, absurd and self-defeating. Further, the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions relating to the procedure of investigation does not attract such a course in the absence of any statutory obligation to the contrary. " (Emphasis supplied and mine)

(2.) MOREOVER, the proposed accused cannot appear and say that the F. I. R. should not be registered against him of a cognizable offence. Once a cognizable offence is disclosed, it is the law that F. I. R. must be registered. Pre-registration of F. I. R. hearing is not contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not given any right to anybody to challenge the registration of F. I. R. against him when he is alleged to have committed a cognizable offence. If allowed such a procedure will be against the statutory provision. This revision is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. Revision dismissed. .