AFROZ JAHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri S. K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Sri M. S. Haq, learned Coun sel for opposite party No. 2, and learned AG A for the State.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 had moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. praying for direction to the police of police station Nagina, district Bijnor, to register a case under Sections 420,467,468,471/34, IPC and investigate the same. The allega tions were that an election was to be held for electing Vice- President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Nagina. According to the rules 50 per cent of the members were required to be present to complete the quorum for holding the meeting. The elec tion meeting was to be held on 6-3-97. The accused persons in order to show the quorum forged signatures of Smt. Savitri Devi, Hukum Singh and Veer Singh and showing their presence at the time of meeting conducted election proceedings whereas the aforesaid three members were not present. The learned Magistrate ap pears to have directed the police con cerned-to enquire and after preliminary enquiry, police appears to have submitted report dated 9-4-97. The applicant (respondent No. 2) appears to have filed affidavits of the aforesaid three members who denied their signatures in the election proceedings dated 6-3-97. The learned Magistrate did not rely upon the prelimi nary enquiry report and satisfied by the affidavits filed by the aforesaid three mem bers directed the police to register and investigate the case by order dated 25-7-97. It is this order which is being chal lenged in this revision.

(3.) BARE perusal of Section 156 (3) would show that there is nothing in law under which the learned Magistrate after receipt of an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. PC. is required to obtain a preliminary enquiry report from the police. Police can investigate the case either after recording the FIR under Sec tion 154, Cr. PC. when a cognizable case is disclosed from the FIR or under the direc tions of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr. PC. It is only by way of abun dant precaution that the Magistrates some times to satisfy themselves, if any cog nizable offence is disclosed, call for the police report. Such report cannot be equated with report of the investigation under Section 173, Cr. PC. or under Sec tion 169, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police. It is well settled that even after investigation in accordance with the provisions of law if the police submits report under Section 169, Cr. P. C. , the Court is not bound by the opinion of the Investigating Agency and on the material collected during investiga tion the Court can arrive at its own con clusion. In the instant case there was only preliminary enquiry report and there is nothing to show that statements of any witnesses were recorded or the documents were perused by the Inquiry Officer. The learned Magistrate, in order to satisfy him self that a cognizable offence was dis closed, perused the affidavits filed on be half of the applicant (respondent No. 2) and thereafter directed registration and investigation of the case. In my view no illegality has been committed. The learned Counsel has not been able to show that the facts mentioned in the application did not disclose any cognizable offence.