BALJIT KAUR Vs. SURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.), complainant Baljit Kaur has assailed order dated 15.2.2012, Annexure P/3 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga thereby directing the petitioner-complainant to lead her preliminary evidence in support of criminal complaint Annexure P/1 instituted by her for offences under sections 493, 494,495, 376, 420,465,467,471,120-B IPC against the respondents, although the petitioner sought registration of First Information Report (FIR) in exercise of power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that learned Magistrate called for report of concerned Station House Officer (SHO) and accordingly report Annexure P/2 has been received finding that respondents no. 1 and 7 have committed fraud with the petitioner-complainant, but in spite thereof, learned Magistrate instead of ordering registration of FIR by exercising power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has directed the petitioner-complainant to lead preliminary evidence and the impugned order is, therefore, illegal because registration of FIR should have been ordered in view of police report Annexure P/2.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 contended that the Magistrate having taken cognizance of the complaint and having called for police report under section 202 Cr.P.C., could not have thereafter exercised power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of FIR and the learned Magistrate has, therefore, rightly called upon the complainant-petitioner to lead her preliminary evidence in the complaint. I have carefully considered the rival contentions.