RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 17-5-2007 passed by C. J. M. Gautam Budh Nagar on the Misc. Application No. 69 of 2007 filed by the applicant under Section 156 (3), Crpc for getting his F. I. R. registered at the police station, which prayer has been refused by the C. J. M. , Gautam Budh Nagar by passing the impugned order.

(2.) THE application of the applicant under Section 156 (3), Crpc was filed with the allegation that S. I. Anil Kumar, S. I. Chandra Pal Singh, Head Constable Khurshid, constable Satendra Singh and constable Kunwar Pal Singh of police station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar wrongly confined Rakesh Kumar and Sanjay on 20- 4-2007 at 8. 30 p. m. After detaining them for two hours at the police station, they were left freed from lock up and, therefore, the applicant alongwith four others was falsely implicated in a case and Rs. 50,000/- belonging to the applicant were taken up by the aforesaid police personnels. Since the F. I. R. of the applicant was not registered, he filed an application under Section 156 (3), Crpc. THE said prayer of the applicant was rejected by C. J. M. Gautam Budh Nagar by passing the impugned order dated 17-5-2007. THE said order of refusal is under challenge in this application.

(3.) THE aforesaid observations made by C. J. M. is pre-judging the issue without getting it verified or investigated. C. J. M. , Gautam Budh Nagar was only to look into the application and decide the prayer. THE application of the applicant disclosed commission of cognizable offence of wrongful confinement and looting of money Rs. 50,000 by the male factors police personnels. Discloser of source of Rs. 50,000 by the applicant in the application under Section 156 (3), Crpc was not at all warranted nor on the said basis, the offence of loot could have been refused to be got registered. THE abusive words was also not required to be mentioned in the application under Section 156 (3), Crpc. Further the allegation was that a single blow by a danda was given by the police personnels to Rakesh Kumar. It is not essential that the injured should have got himself medically examined. THE fact remains is that the application did disclose commission of cognizable offence and since the Apex Court has held in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, that if the cognizable offence is disclosed, the police must registered the F. I. R. as it is its statutory duty the C. J. M. is directed the police to follow mandate of law. In the present case, the statutory duty was not observed by the police and, therefore, the Magistrate was duty bound to direct the police to follow the mandate of law as has been held by the Apex Court. By not doing so the Chief Judicial Magistrate not only committed the manifest error of law but he did most glaring injustice to the applicant by pre-judging the allegation of the applicant as false. THE reasoning given by the Magistrate is wholly illegal unwarranted and against the material on record. It seems that because the police personals were involved in the case, therefore, the C. J. M. Gautam Budh Nagar was trying to shield them. This conduct from the C. J. M. was not expected.