MADHUBALA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) THE impugned order dated 21-11-2006 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 7, Allahabad is wholly illegal order as the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed only with the prayer to direct the police to register and investigate the offence. THE allegations which were levelled in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. inter alia were that on 26-10-2006 when the revisionist Smt. Madhubala was going in the field at about 4. 00 a. m. for easing. THEn at that time the opposite party No. 2 Lallo Ram Kesharwani with an ill intention caught hold her hands, abuses her filthily and tried to scratched then of her cloths for the purposes of molesting. THE said allegations makes out cognizable offence and therefore, the police was under the mandate of law to register the F. I. R. THE Magistrate concerned was approached by the victim to direct the police to follow the mandate of law, which the police had not followed. THE power of Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. does not empower him to register the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. as complaint on his own without the prayer being made by the victim. Filing of a complaint, leading of evidence, bringing of witnesses all are the rights of the complainant. In this case the complainant who is a lady and who was molested and threatened by the accused was not in a position to file the complaint, therefore, the Magistrate A. C. J. M. (Junior Division)- III Allahabad committed a manifest error of law in registering the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to as a complaint. THE helpless lady, who was molested by the accused, was not given justice by the Magistrate. Filing of a complaint and prosecution of the same by the lady definitely was a difficult task especially in view of the fact that the accused was much stronger than her. It is not the law that the Magistrate should treat the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and convert the same into complaint, Cr. P. C not given power to the Magistrate to treat any application as a complaint on his own whims. THE Magistrate is act in accordance with law and not to act on the whimsicality of his attitude. THE Magistrate in the present case has not given any reason why he had not directed the police to exercise the power of investigation once the cognizable offence was disclosed to him as has been held by the Apex Court in case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. ; 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and Union Of India v. W. N. Chadha, 1993 SCC (Cr.) 1171 and many other judgments.