HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Ram, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 21.5.2012 (Annexure P1) passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura. Vide the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura instead of sending the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to S.H.O., Police Station Sadar, Rajpura for registration of the case, directed preliminary evidence to be brought for a given date. Hari Ram had filed an application containing his allegations praying for an order sending the said application to Police Station, Sadar, .. Rajpura under the provisions of section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the case of an offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The said prayer was declined for the sole reason that no ground was made out for sending the case to the police station. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura did not care to give her reasons for finding no ground to send the case to the police station.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no reason for the learned Magistrate to withhold the said relief from the petitioner. He has cited before me a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 1 RCR(Cri) 392 where it is laid down that the Magistrate has very wide powers under section 156 Cr.P.C. to direct the police to register FIR and to monitor the investigation. However, this is one aspect of the power. The question is as to whether the Magistrate has the power to refuse sending of the case to the police station for registration of FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before me some other decisions. The first in Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2010 7 RCR(Cri) 285, a decision of Rajasthan High Court, (Jaipur Bench) where it has been held that an application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not amount to complaint.

(3.) Another case cited before me is a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan and others, 2006 1 RCR(Cri) 450. In this case, it has been laid down that the Magistrate before whom a criminal complaint regarding cognizable .. offence has been filed, can direct the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate and register FIR without taking cognizance. The powers under section 156(3) and 202 (1) Cr.P.C. are distinguished in another decision reported as Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and others, 1976 AIR(SC) 1672 He has also cited before me a note of case in Smt. Manju Devi Vs. State of U.P. And Ors.,2012 CrLJ 197 where the rejection of application for investigation of a case came to focus. The Magistrate had refused to order investigation on the grounds of contradictory medical evidence. It has been held that the Magistrate is not empowered to critically analyze material on record and come to finding that no case is made out. It has also been considered as to what the Magistrate should do in the case of doubt and it has been held that in case of doubt, the Magistrate should have left it to be proved by investigating officer. The refusal to order investigation by the Magistrate was held illegal.