RAMWATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Saroj Bala, J. By means of this application moved under section 482 Cr. P. C. applicants pray for quashing the order dated 17. 10. 2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Khurja District Bulandshahar in criminal misc. application No. Nil of 2006, Laxmi Devi v. Siya Ram and others, whereby in exercise of power under section 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) directing the Inspector Incharge reporting outpost Khurja Junction, P. S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar to register and investigate.

(2.) HEARD Shri Sunil Kumar, holding brief of Shri Daya Shankar, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A. G. A. and have perused the record.

(3.) IN the present case the First INformation Report is yet to be registered in pursuance of impugned order. Section 154 (1) of the Code provides that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer incharge of police station, shall be reduced to writing by him. The First INformation Report is an information given to the police which sets criminal law in motion requiring investigating agency to take steps towards investigation. The First INformation Report can come from any quarter. It is mandatory for police officer incharge of police station to record an information lodged at the police station relating to a cognizable offence. Section 156 (1) of the Code empowers the officer incharge of a police station to investigate any cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate. Section 156 (3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to order investigation of cognizable offence. The quashing of order dated 17. 10. 2007 at the behest of proposed accused would amount to passing of an order against the statutory provisions under section 154 (1) of Code under which the officer incharge of a police station is bound to register every information relating to a cognizable offence. A cognizable offence can be investigated by the officer incharge of police station without the order of a Magistrate or in pursuance of an order of Magistrate passed under section 156 (3) of Code. The officer incharge of police station having not registered the information of cognizable offences, the opposite party approached the Court by invoking its jurisdiction under section 156 (3) of the Code for a direction of investigation of cognizable offences. The Magistrate having found that contents of application moved under section 156 (3) of the Code constituted cognizable offences directed the police to register and investigate. The disputed question of facts raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants cannot be gone into by this Court as the matter is under investigation by the police. 6. The Apex Court in Union of INdia v. W. N. Chadha 1993 SCC (Cr.) 1171 Joginder Kumar v. State of U. P. , 1994 (31) ACC 431 (SC) = 1994 SCC (Cr.) 1172 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC) = 1992 supp (1) SCC 335 has held that the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of investigating agencies over which the Courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation. IN the Case of W. N. Chadha (supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that under the scheme of Chapter XII of the Code there are various provisions under which no prior notice or opportunity of being heard is conferred as a matter of course to an accused person while the proceeding is at the stage of investigation by a police officer. 'it was further held (paragraph-98) that 'if prior notice and an opportunity of hearing are to be given to an accused in every criminal case before taking any action against him, such a procedure would frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and make the provisions of law relating to the investigation as lifeless, absurd and self-defeating. ' 7. The order of registration and investigation is only a direction to the police to investigate cognizable offences. The proposed accused have no right of hearing at a pre-registration stage. IN view of the above discussion proposed accused have no right to be heard before the registration of First INformation Report or at the investigation stage and to say that First INformation Report of cognizable offences should not be registered against them. IN view of the above discussion the application is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. The application is dismissed. Application Dismissed. .