KANT RAJI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) IN this case the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed by the present revisionist regarding the murder of her daughter, namely, Savitri because of lust of dowry under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 3/4 D. P. Act. The said application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. has been rejected by C. J. M. Maharajganj vide his impugned order dated 14-7-2006. I have gone through the impugned order dated 14-7-2006 passed by C. J. M. , Maharajganj in the aforesaid case No. 5796 of 2006 Smt. Kant Raji Devi v. Praveen Kumar and Ors. . The impugned order is wholly illegal and has been passed without any reasoning. C. J. M. concerned has got no power to refuse registration and investigation of the case if the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. filed before him discloses commission of cognizable offence. Section 156 (3) relates with cognizable offence he investigation of, which is to be carried out by the police under Section 156 (1) Cr. P. C. without fail. Moreover, Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. is incorporated under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is incorporated to check high-handedness and arbitrary act of the police. This does not mean that the Magistrate should also start acting arbitrarily. IN this case the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. disclosed the commission of cognizable offence of dowry death, and therefore, it was the duty of the C. J. M. to direct the police to register the case and investigate the same. By not doing so C. J. M. Mahrajganj has committed miscarriage of justice.