RAJWATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.

(2.) SINCE only a question of law is involved in this case, therefore, in agreement of with both the parties, this revision is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself and is decided finally by this order.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the rejection of the aforesaid application the revisionist has approached this Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr. P. C. by filing the present revision. Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. falls under the Chapter VII of the Court Title as "information TO THE POLICE AND THEIR POWER OF INVESTIGATION. " Section 156 (3) is qualified by words "any Magistrate" and "order such an investigation as abovementioned. " These words clearly indicate that investigation under Section 156 (3) is referable to the same investigation which is contemplated 156 (1) Cr. P. C. Under Section 156 (1) Cr. P. C. the police has got the power to investigate any cognizable offence even without an order from the concerned Magistrate. It is the mandate of law under Section 154 (1) Cr. P. C. that the officer-in-charge of a police station must register each and every information relating to a cognizable offence whether they are given orally or in writing and whether the accused is named there under or not. It is under Section 156 (1) Cr. P. C. that the police officer is mandated by law to investigate all such informations if he has reasons to suspect commission of cognizable offence. I may point out here that once an information of cognizable offence is given to an officer-in-charge of Police Station, he has to record it in a prescribed manner provided by the respective State Government which is known as FIR. Under Section 156 (1) Cr. P. C. the investigation is to be conducted by the police unless and until the officer in-charge of police station is of the opinion that the registered FIR does not require any investigation under Section 157 (2) Cr. P. C. For clearing of doubt I may mention here that registration of an FIR is one thing and investigation of the offence mention in the FIR is another. It has been held by the Privy Council in case of Khwaja Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, 1945 PC page 17, as follows: "the function of the judiciary and the police are complementary and not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise it's own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene inappropriate case moved under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, to give direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus. "