LAWS(RAJ)-2012-2-172

LAL CHAND Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI AND ANR.

Decided On February 09, 2012
LAL CHAND Appellant
V/S
Santosh Kumari And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal Cr. Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.3.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar in complaint No. 6 of 2011 whereby the trial court declined to send the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned police station. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed a complaint under section 190 Cr.P.C. against the accused respondents for offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC before the ACJM Sikar. The ACJM declined to send the case for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and fixed the matter for recording statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The petitioner filed the petition challenging the order of the ACJM rejecting the prayer of the complainant for sending the complainant under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the police station concerned but the ACJM passed the order for recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 23.3.2011. This order of the ACJM has been challenged in the instant case.

(3.) Mr. Anil Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the complainant has filed the complaint for the offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and from the facts and circumstances taken therein the matter deserves to be instigated under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the police but the ACJM without looking to the seriousness of the allegation opined that there is no justified reason to investigate the case by the police. The ACJM has not exercised its power and discretion as per Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. objectively while not sending the case for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereas the complaint is for cognizance offences and therefore matter should be investigated by the police concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions placed reliance on Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan and anr., 2006 CrLR 154 .