JAMNA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Kahim, J. Heard learned counsel. It has been submitted that Crime Case No. 7-A/96 was started on the basis of an order of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. but the learned Magistrate has got no power to proceed under that section. Since a complaint when filed under Section 200, Cr. P. C. , the Magistrate is to adopt the procedure of that Chapter and he is to examine the complainant and witnesses in their favour. If he desires that the matter should be investigated he can send it to the police station under Section 202, Cr. P. C. There is no provision of law to file an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. It has also been submitted that under that section a Magistrate can direct for investigation but cannot ask for registration of the case. The later part of the submission is covered by Surajmal's case reported in 1993 ACC 81. A Division Bench of this Court has decided the issue stating that "objection of the learned counsel that registration of a case in the police station could not be directed by the learned Magistrate, is not correct. " This rests with the matter relating to the power of the Magistrate to issue a direction for registration of a case. But with regard to the first part of the submission of the learned counsel that the complaint must be filed under Section 200, Cr. P. C. is not borne out with the spirit of the provi sions in Criminal Procedure Code in regard to the lodging of a case. The complaint as per section 2 (d), Cr. P. C. means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code. So it is not confined that a Magistrate should take action under Section 200, Cr. P. C. only. Under that section the Magistrate may take action when he wants to take cognizance of an offence and if he does not take cognizance, Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. do not come to play.

(2.) UNDER Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. what the Magistrate is empowered to do is to see whether any cognizable offence has been disclosed. Scrutiny of the complaint is limited to that extent only and if he is convinced that such a condition has been fulfilled he will send the complaint to the police station with a direction for registration and for investigation. In this regard the contention of the learned counsel is not correct that the Magis trate is powerless in this respect. So this part of the contention is there fore, rejected.

(3.) A question has been raised whether this Court, while enjoying inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can quash the First Information Report and stay the arrest. In Ram Lal Yadav case [1989 ACC 1981 (FB)] it was held that power of the police to investigate into a report which discloses commission of a congnizable offence is unfettered and cannot be interfered by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Thereafter in 1990 in the case of reported in 1991 (28) ACC 399 a Single Bench of this Court on the basis of two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, the cases of Pavithran's (1990) 2 JT 43 and the case of R. K. Srivastava (1989) 4 SCC 59 referred the question whether in view of those two decisions of the Supreme Court the Full Bench decision in Ram Lal Yadav's case is a good law, to a larger bench which is yet to be constituted.