JAGGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGGAR Singh petitioner has come up in this Court in the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the order of the learned trial Magistrate dated 12th September, 1979, Annexure P/2/A, and first information report No. 361, dated 15th September 1979, Annexure P/1, registered in consequence of the aforesaid order be quashed.

(2.) THE facts which gave, rise to this petition are that one Jai Pal son of Brij Lal resident of Desu Jodha filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in exercise of the powers under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide his aforesaid order forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Dabwali, for the registration of a case against he petitioner. In consequence of the afore said order of the learned Magistrate case F.I.R. No. 361, dt. 15th September, 1979, was registered at Police Station, Dabwali, against the petitioner.

(3.) THE main contention raised by Mr. D. S. Ball, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Magistrate was not competent undersection 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order the registeration of a case against the petitioner. He was only empowered to order investigation of the case under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that this order and the consequent registeration of case against the petitioner are illegal in view of the provisions of section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. A.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the State of Haryana, has very fairly conceded that the Magistrate was certainly not competent to order the registration of case in exercise of the powers under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.' He was only competent to send the complaint to the police for investigation. Consequently I quash order Annexure P/2/A, first information report No. 361 dated 15th September, 1979, Annexure P/1, and all other proceedings in consequence of the registration of the case. The case is sent back to the llaqa Magistrate who may order further investigation if' he so chooses. The parties ate directed to appear before the Magistrate on 7th May 1984.