NAND LAL Vs. RANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE order under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was passed by the Magistrate on 22-6-2006 on the application filed by respondent wherein she alleged that she is the wife of the applicant Nand Lal and she was tortured because of the illegal demand of dowry and was assaulted. Magistrate exercising powers under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. ordered for registration of the F. I. R. And investigation of the offences. THE said order was challenged by filing a revision by the present applicants, who are accused in the aforesaid case. THE lower revisional Court dismissed their revision vide order dated 16-5-2007 by holding that the revision at the instance of those persons who are accused of cognizable offence is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Rakesh Puri and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2006 (56) A. C. C. 516. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides. The Apex Court not once but time and again re-iterated the law that at the stage of Section 156 (3) the Magistrate has got no right to go into the merits of the allegations, legality or illegality, probability or improbability of the allegations levelled. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : (1992) SCC (Crl) 462 paragraphs 30, 31, 33. The said law was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Superintendent of Police C. B. I. v. Tapan Kumar Singh, 2001 (1) JIC 174 (SC ). Recently the Apex Court has, reaffirmed and reiterated the said law in the case of Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2006 (2) JIC 671 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 1322. In such a view the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the Magistrate, was required to meticulously appreciate the allegations levelled in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. cannot be accepted at all as the said contention is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.