RATTAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 12.05.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. Prayer of the petitioner is that once the matter was referred to the police for the purpose of investigation at the pre-cognizance stage then the police was bound to register a case for investigation and then submit a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, however, had referred the matter to the police to investigate and report. Pursuant to this order, SHO had submitted a report on 10.05.2012. The report of SHO revealed that he was of the view that after registration of case against the above said person, it is necessary to investigate the matter. The Magistrate, at that stage, however, decided to take on the investigation himself which had prompted the petitioner to approach this Court on the ground that this procedure, as adopted, is not in consonance with law.

(2.) This Court had thought it appropriate to obtain certain comments from the trial Magistrate and even had asked the Sessions Judge to examine the file and sent his comments. The comments from the Sessions Judge have been received and are on record.

(3.) Certain observations have also been made by this Court in the case A.C. Jaggi v. State of Punjab, 2007 1 RCR(Cri) 752. This was also a case, where the Magistrate had also sent a complaint to police for investigation and report. The Court has observed that the police was not required to first register an FIR and then to investigate. The Court found that the order of Magistrate fell under 202 Cr.P.C. and not under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The Court has drawn distinction, where the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence under Section 202 then he can direct the police to register the FIR against investigation. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case of Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of M.P. and another, 2001 2 JT 81. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has overruled the another judgment of this Court incidentally titled Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 1996 3 RCR(Cri) 137. While commenting upon the directions issued by this court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: