Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramawtar vs State Of M.P. on 4 December, 2014
1 Mcrc.6716/13
Ramawtar & another Vs. State of M.P. & another
4/12/14
Shri R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner No.1-
Ramawatar and petitioner No.2-Jitendra Pandey.
Shri R.P.Rathi, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/
State.
Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2- Ramprakash Goswami.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved from the order dated 12/7/13 passed from the court of Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior whereby the complaint filed by respondent No.2-Rampraksh Goswami (herein) was directly sent to the concerning police station Bijauli to register a case under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit further report. The abstract and relevant portion of the impugned order runs as below:-
"Since the offence as shown in this private complaint has been committed within the jurisdiction of police station Bijauli, therefore, copy of the complaint be sent to police station Bijauli and in turn the SHO of police station Bijauli is directed to register a case under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and file a report thereupon on the next date on 22/8/2013."
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court without examining the contents of the complaint straightway directed the police to register a case 2 Mcrc.6716/13 Ramawtar & another Vs. State of M.P. & another under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It amounts to non-application of his judicial mind. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the guidelines on this point have already been issued in the case of Ramyash Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. [2013 (I) MPLJ (Cri) 484] decided by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur as well as in the case of Arvind @ Kallu & Another Vs. State of M.P. & Others M.Cr.C.No.7019/12 decided on 27th of August, 2014 from Gwalior Bench. The present case is fully covered with the ratio of decisions taken in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed in the light of the aforesaid observations.
Per contra, it is submitted by Shri Gupta,learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that by passing the impugned order only this much has been directed that the case be registered and report be submitted and therefore no prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioners and there is no need to quash the impugned order. It is therefore prayed that the petition may be dismissed.
Having regard to the submissions aforesaid, the entire case has been examined.
It is clear that in ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, the trial Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance without applying mind as guided in the aforesaid citations. In the present case, the trial Judge at preliminary stage under Section 156(3) of the Code by the order dated 12/7/2013 sent the complaint to the Police under Section 3 Mcrc.6716/13 Ramawtar & another Vs. State of M.P. & another 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register a case and to file a report. Therefore, the directions given by the court are not in conformity with the provisions as laid down above.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order impugned stands set side with a direction to the trial court to follow the procedure and proceed with complaint case as per provision of the law. The respondent No.2 is directed to remain present before the trial court on 19/12/2014.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.
(B.D.Rathi) Judge (Bu)