PAPITA DEVI Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the complainant is directed against an order dated 15th May 2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 160/2005 by the Sessions Judge, Morena setting aside thereby the order dated 21st July 2005 of the Judicial Magistrate First class, Ambah.

(2.) Facts in short for the decision of this revision petition are that the complainant/Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused-Respondent No. 1 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 506-B of I.P.C. The leaned trial Magistrate vide order dated 21st July,05 while sending copy of the said complaint directed the SHO of concerned Police Station to register it as an FIR and after investigation in the matter submit the report to the court.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that on filing the complaint under Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial court instead of taking cognizance under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, sent the copy of the complaint for registration of an offence and investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure It is contended that the provisions contained under Section 156(3) and 202(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure are distinct and separate provisions, therefore, they can not be clubbed together. A Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence and before examining the complainant on oath, may send the complaint to the concerned officer In-charge of the police station to register the complaint as FIR and thereafter to take further steps contemplated in chapter XII. If the complaint discloses offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court, even then the Magistrate has power to send complaint to police for investigation under Section 156(3) and his power to send complaint to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code is not barred under first proviso to Section 202 of the Code. The order dated 21st July 2005 passed by trial magistrate is valid as per provisions of law as mentioned and the order passed by the revisional court is not correct, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.