KIRAN DEV SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to the following order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh : - Complaint presented today. It is forwarded to the S.H.O., Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh for registration of FIR and investigation in accordance with law under Section 156(3) of the Crl. P.C. Sd/ - JMIC 3.12.1994"

(2.) THE above order was passed by the learned Magistrate in furtherance to the complaint filed by one Rajesh Kumar against Rakesh Kumar, Kiran Dev and Ramesh Kumar Sharma, under Sections 114, 120, 406, 420 IPC ( -sic. -) read with Section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This complaint was filed by the complainant on 3.12.1994. After perusing the complaint, the learned Magistrate passed the above order.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the learned Magistrate could not have directed registration of an F.I.R. as no power is vested in the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pass such an order. For this purpose, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Bains v. State (UT, Chandigarh) reported as AIR 1980 SC 1883 and M/s Cucusan Foils. Pvt. Ltd. v. State (Delhi Administration) reported as 1990 (2) RCR 517. Not only the aforesaid judgments, but even the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh bass v. State of Haryana and Anr. Criminal Misc. No.3545/M of 1992, decided on 10.8.1995 after detailed discussion held that under the provisions of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has no power to direct registration of the case. Similar view was taken by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 19597 -M of 1995 Hans Raj Talwar v. State of Haryana and Ors. decided on 5.1.1996. [All India Criminal Law Reporter 1996(2) 27]