Allahabad High Court
Saida vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 July, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:110855 Reserved- 05.07.2024 Delivered- 09.07.2024 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47176 of 2023 Applicant :- Saida Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey,Naushad Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Applicant before this Court is a woman who has filed an FIR bearing No. 0594 dated 10.10.2021 against opposite parties no. 2 to 4 for offence under Sections 452, 376-D, 506 IPC wherein after investigation, a final report being no. 01 dated 31.12.2021 was submitted.
2. It is alleged by applicant that no notice was issued to her on final report and opposite parties no. 2 to 4 put an imposter of applicant and filed an affidavit putting her forged thumb impression along with forged photograph that she does not want to file any protest petition and final report may be accepted. A scanned copy of same is pasted hereinafter :-
3. It is further case of applicant that trial Court on basis of above referred forged affidavit has accepted the final report dated 18.11.2022. For reference, said order is quoted below :-
"18.11.2022- पत्रावली पेश हुई। वादिनी मुकदमा श्रीमती सईदा उपस्थित। वादिनी मुकदमा द्वारा प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत कर कथन किया गया है कि प्रार्थनी उक्त वाद में वादिनी है तथा उक्त बाद में थाना प्रेषित एफ०आर० पर कोई आपत्ति नहीं है तथा न ही उक्त वाद में कोई अग्रिम कार्यवाही नहीं चाहती है। अतः प्रस्तुत अन्तिम आख्या को स्वीकार किये जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी है।
सुना एवं पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया।
प्रार्थनी/वादिनी सईदा द्वारा परिवाद यासीन आदि के विरुद्ध, थाना ठाकुरद्वारा, जिला मुरादाबाद में पंजीकृत कराया गया है। विपक्षीगण व वादिनी मुकदमा में मोबाइल की चोरी को लेकर विवाद हुआ था, जिसके संबंध में 107/116 दं०प्र०सं० की कार्यवाही की गयी थी। पत्रावली में संलग्न साक्षीगण/ शपथकर्ताओं के शपथ पत्र में वादिनी की पुत्री शबीना द्वारा भी धारा 156 (3) दं०प्र०सं० के माध्यम से घटना दिनांक 19.08.2022 में प्राथमिकी दर्ज कराने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र प्रेषित किया, जिसका उल्लेख वादिनी ने अपनी तहरीर में नहीं लिखा, इसलिए वादिनी द्वारा झूठी प्राथमिकी लिखायी है। स्वतंत्र साक्षी व पीडिता के बयान 161 व 164 दं०प्र०सं० में विरोधाभास है। साथ ही डॉ० निर्मला ओझा की मेडिकल रिपोर्ट में पीडिता/वादिनी के शरीर पर कोई मृत या जीवित स्पर्म नहीं मिला। विवेचक/उपनिरीक्षक के द्वारा विवेचनोपरान्त अन्तिम आख्या सं0-198/2021, दि० 31.12.2021 न्यायालय में स्वीकृत किये जाने हेतु प्रेषित की गयी है। वादिनी द्वारा अंतिम आख्या स्वीकृत किये जाने की प्रार्थना की गई है। विवेचक द्वारा की गई विवेचना में कोई त्रुटि नहीं है। तदनुसार प्रार्थना पत्र भय शपथ पत्र के प्रकाश में अन्तिम आख्या सं0-198/2021, दि० 31.12.2021 स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है।"
4. Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that aforesaid order has been challenged by way of filing a criminal revision bearing No. 402/2022 which is pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and grounds taken therein are quoted below :-
"1. यह कि निगरानीकर्ता उपरोक्त मुकदमें की वादनी है।
2. यह कि निगरानीकर्ता ने उपरोक्त मुकदमें की प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट सही तथ्यों पर लिखायी थी, व सही मुल्जिमानो के विरूद्ध लिखायी थी, परन्तु विवेचक ने त्रुटिपूर्ण विवेचना करते हुए पारदर्शी तरीके से अपनी डयूटी को अन्जाम नहीं दिया है, और विरूद्ध कानून एफ० आर० प्रेषित कर दी है।
3. यह कि विवेचक द्वारा 'प्रेषित अन्तिम रिपोर्ट किसी कानूनी रूपसे पोषणीय नहीं है।
4. यह कि अवर न्यायालयका दायित्व था कि न्यायालय में अन्तिम रिपोर्ट प्राप्त होने के पश्चात वादी को नोटिस देना चाहिये था, क्योकि कानून के प्रावधान के अनुसार यह आवश्यक है।
5. यह कि अवर न्यायालय ने वादनी / निगरानीकर्ता को कोई नोटिस अन्तिम रिपोर्ट प्राप्त होने के पश्चात जारी नही किया।
6. यह कि अवर न्यायालय का दायित्व था कि वादी की ओर से यदि, अन्तिम रिपोर्ट स्वीकार हेतु आया था, तो उसका भली भांति प्रकार से सत्यापन आवश्यक था।
7. यह कि प्रस्तुत मामले में मुल्जिमान द्वारा असल (वास्तविक वादनी)/ निगरानीकर्ता की जगह स्वंय अपनी तरफ से फर्जी वादनी श्रीमती सईदा को बनाकर अदालत में प्रार्थनापत्र व शपथपत्रं देकर अन्तिम रिपोर्ट स्वीकार करने की प्रार्थना की गयी।
8. यह कि अन्तिम रिपोर्ट स्वीकार करने के प्रार्थनापत्र के साथ संलग्न शपथपत्र पर जो फोटो लगा है, वो वादनी / निगरानीकर्ता का नही है, और ना ही उन पर वादनी/निगरानीकर्ता के अंगूठे है।
9. यह कि अवर न्यायालय ने इन फर्जी प्रपत्रो की कोई जांच / सत्यापन नही कराया और नाही मौखिक साक्ष्य प्राप्त किया।
10. यह कि मुकदमें के मुल्जिमान ने जानबूझकर षडयंत्र रचकर, कूटरचित दस्तावेज तैयार करके सोची समझी स्कीम के तहत न्यायालय को धोखा देकर फर्जी तरीके से अन्तिम रिपोर्ट तैयार करा ली है, जो कि एक बहुत अत्यन्त गम्भीर विषय है, और किसी भी कानूनी के तहत वैध नही है।
11. यह कि मुल्जिमान के इस कृत्य से व अवर न्यायालय के आदेश से प्रार्थनी / निगरानीकर्ता की सख्त हकतल्फी हुयी है, जिससे मुल्जिमान को अनुचित लाभ मिला है।
12. यह न्यायहित मे व कानून की दृष्टि से अवर न्यायालय का आदेश दिनांक-18/11/2022 हर सूरत में खारिज किये जाने योग्य है।"
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that since opposite parties no. 2 to 4 have prepared a forged document i.e. an affidavit putting forged thumb impression and a photograph of applicant and submitted before trial Court, as such, they have committed an offence and therefore, she filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against present opposite parties no. 2 to 4 and 1 other named as well as an unknown women with a prayer that an FIR be lodged and investigation be conducted against them for committing offence of cheating, forgery, etc. For reference, said application is quoted below :-
"प्रार्थना पत्र अन्तर्गत धारा 156 (3) सी० आर० पी० सी० संबंधित थाना सिविल लाइन्स मुरादाबाद श्रीमान जी, निवेदन है कि प्रार्थिनी शाम शरीफ नगर, थाना ठाकुरद्वारा, जिला मुरादाबाद की निवासी है। प्रार्थिनी के गाँव के ही इफ्तेखार पुत्र निसार, कलीम पुत्र अजीज, यासीन पुत्र शकूर ने दिनांक 18-08-2021 की रात को प्रार्थनी के घर में घुसकर तमंचे की नोक पर गैंगरेप किया और इफ्तेखार के भाई इल्यास ने रिपोर्ट दर्ज न कराने के लिए धमकाया था। जिसके सम्बंध में उच्चाधिकारी के आदेश पर प्रार्थिनी की रिपोर्ट दिनांक 10-10-2021 को अ०स० 594/2021 धारा 376डी, 452, 506 थाना ठाकुरद्वारा में दर्ज हुई थी। मुल्जिमानो ने अपने प्रभाव का इस्तेमाल कर प्रार्थिनी के मुकदमे में फाईनल रिपोर्ट लगवा दी थी। विवेचक महोदय ने प्रार्थनी के मुकदमे 310स0-594/2021 में फाईनल रिपोर्ट सं० 198/2021 माननीय न्यायालय ए० सी० जे० एम० प्रथम मुरादाबाद में दाखिल कर दी थी।
प्रार्थिनी के पास माननीय न्यायालय ए० सी० जे० एम० प्रथम मुरादाबाद से मुकदमे के सम्बंध में कभी भी कोई सम्मन सूचना या नोटिस प्राप्त नही हुआ है। प्रार्थिनी को अधिवक्ता के माध्यम से मुकदमे की नकल प्राप्त करने पर ज्ञात हुआ कि मुल्जिमान इफ्तेखार, कलीम, यासीन, इल्यास ने सोची समझी स्कीम व षडयंत्र के तहत प्रार्थिनी के स्थान पर किसी अन्य महिला को न्यायालय श्रीमान ए० सी० जे० एम० प्रथन मुरादाबाद में पेश करके और कुट रचित प्रार्थना पत्र और शपथपत्र दाखिल कर न्यायालय को धोखा देकर प्रार्थनी के मुकदमे की फाइनल रिपोर्ट सं0 198/2021 को स्वीकार करा लिया है। मुल्जिमानो द्वारा न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत शपथपत्र एवं प्रार्थना पत्र पर प्रार्थनी के अंगूठा निशान नहीं है और न ही प्रार्थनी का फोटो है और प्रार्थनी कभी न्यायालय में हाजिर नहीं हुई है। मुल्जिमानो के द्वारा षड्यन्त्र के तहत कूट रचित दस्तावेजो के आधार पर फर्जी तरीके से प्रार्थिनी के मुकदमे की फाइनल रिपोर्ट स्वीकार करा लिए जाने से प्रार्थनी को असीम हानि हुई है और प्रार्थनी बहुत अधिक परेशान है।
प्रार्थनी के साथ मुल्जिमानो के द्वारा फर्जीवाड़ा करने पर प्रार्थनी ने अपनी रिपोर्ट दर्ज कराने के लिए दिनांकः 02-02-2022 को थाना सिविल लाईन्स मुरादाबाद में प्रार्थना पत्र दिया। थाना सिविल लाईन्स मुरादाबाद द्वारा रिपोर्ट दर्ज नही करने पर प्रार्थनी ने दिनांक 27.02.2023 को एक प्रार्थना पत्र रजि० डाक द्वारा श्रीमान एस०एस०पी० महोदय मुरादाबाद व एक प्रार्थना पत्र डी० आई० जी० महोदय परिक्षेत्र मुरादाबाद को दिया परन्तु प्रार्थनी की आज तक रिपोर्ट दर्ज नही हुई है। प्रार्थनी अब श्रीमान जी के न्यायालय की शरण में आयी। प्रार्थनी के साथ घोर अन्याय और अपराध हुआ है। जोकि संज्ञेय अपराध की श्रेणी में आता है। मुल्जिमानो के विरूध्द प्रार्थनी की रिपोर्ट दर्ज किया जाना न्यायहित में आवश्यक है।
अतः श्रीमान जी से प्रार्थनी है कि थाना प्रभारी सिविल लाईन्स मुरादाबाद को प्रार्थनी की रिपोर्ट दर्ज कर विवेचना कराने के आदेश पारित करने की कृपा करें। श्रीमान जी की अति कृपा होगी।"
6. Aforesaid application was considered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and it was disposed of by an order impugned dated 31.03.2023 whereby instead of giving a direction to lodge an FIR, the application was considered to be a complaint and matter was put for recording statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Relevant part of impugned order is quoted below :-
"6. प्रार्थना पत्र के वर्णित कथनों से स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थिनी को संदर्भित घटना के समस्त तथ्यों की जानकारी है एवं उसने अपने प्रार्थना पत्र में कथित घटना के समस्त तथ्यों एवं गवाहों का विस्तृत उल्लेख किया है। अभिलेख न्यायालय से सम्बन्धित है। अतः इस स्तर पर पुलिस द्वारा विवेचना कराये जाने की आवश्यकता प्रतीत नहीं होती है।"
7. Learned counsel has submitted that applicant is aggrieved by aforesaid order wherein observations of trial Court are that all facts are within knowledge of applicant/complainant, therefore, there is no need to lodge FIR.
8. Learned counsel has further submitted that said observation is contrary to contents of application as it is a case where opposite parties no. 2 to 4 along with other persons have put an imposter of applicant and prepared a forged affidavit that she does not want to protest final report. Applicant always wanted to lodge an FIR against proposed accused persons and contents of application was for same cause.
9. Learned counsel has next submitted that an offence has been committed in pleadings before Court and all original documents are seized of with trial Court, therefore, applicant could not submit any evidence to it rather it was a fit case where FIR ought to have been lodged and investigation ought to have been carried out.
10. Learned counsel has referred a judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Anju Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and another (2013) 6 SCC 384 and relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 are quoted below :-
"13. A copy of the information so recorded under Section 154(1) has to be given to the informant free of cost. In the event of refusal to record such information, the complainant can take recourse to the remedy available to him under Section 154(3). Thus, there is an obligation on the part of a police officer to register the information received by him of commission of a cognizable offence. The two-fold obligation upon such officer is that (a) he should receive such information and (b) record the same as prescribed. The language of the section imposes such imperative obligation upon the officer. An investigating officer, an officer-in-charge of a police station can be directed to conduct an investigation in the area under his jurisdiction by the order of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code who is competent to take cognizance under Section 190. Upon such order, the investigating officer shall conduct investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 156 of the Code. The specified Magistrate, in terms of Section 190 of the Code, is entitled to take cognizance upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; upon a police report of such facts; upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
14. On the plain construction of the language and scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code, it cannot be construed or suggested that there can be more than one FIR about an occurrence. However, the opening words of Section 154 suggest that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced to writing by the officer in-charge of a Police Station. This implies that there has to be the first information report about an incident which constitutes a cognizable offence. The purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered. The most important aspect is to examine the inbuilt safeguards provided by the legislature in the very language of Section 154 of the Code. These safeguards can be safely deduced from the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and further to prevent abuse of power by the investigating authority of the police. Therefore, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. Of course, the Investigating Agency has no determinative right. It is only a right to investigate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The filing of report upon completion of investigation, either for cancellation or alleging commission of an offence, is a matter which once filed before the court of competent jurisdiction attains a kind of finality as far as police is concerned, may be in a given case, subject to the right of further investigation but wherever the investigation has been completed and a person is found to be prima facie guilty of committing an offence or otherwise, reexamination by the investigating agency on its own should not be permitted merely by registering another FIR with regard to the same offence. If such protection is not given to a suspect, then possibility of abuse of investigating powers by the Police cannot be ruled out. It is with this intention in mind that such interpretation should be given to Section 154 of the Code, as it would not only further the object of law but even that of just and fair investigation. More so, in the backdrop of the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, re-investigation or de novo investigation is beyond the competence of not only the investigating agency but even that of the learned Magistrate. The courts have taken this view primarily for the reason that it would be opposed to the scheme of the Code and more particularly Section 167(2) of the Code. [Ref. Rita Nag v. State of West Bengal [(2009) 9 SCC 129] and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors. (SLP (Crl) No.9185-9186 of 2009 of the same date)."
11. Aforesaid submissions are opposed by Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned AGA for State, S/Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, Mukesh Tiwari and Chandra Pal Singh, learned Advocates appearing for opposite parties no. 2 to 4 and they have submitted that reasons assigned in impugned order that present case does not require any lodgement of FIR are legally sustainable and there is no illegality in considering the applicant filed under Section 156(3) as a complaint.
12. Learned counsel for opposite parties have further submitted that still learned Magistrate still has power under Section 201 Cr.P.C. to direct for investigation if facts so warrant. Applicant is not being prejudiced by impugned order. By referring the order whereby final report was accepted, learned counsel have submitted that order was passed on merit and not only on basis of contents of affidavit.
13. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
14. In above factual and legal background, few facts which are not much under dispute are that an FIR lodged by applicant against proposed accused was investigated, however, final report was submitted which was accepted by an order dated 16.11.2022. Controversy is in regard to an affidavit purportedly filed by applicant herself that she did not want to oppose final report.
15. From bare perusal of above referred order dated 18.11.2022, it would be clearly evident that trial Court has passed the order accepting the final report on basis of material available and not much being influenced by affidavit purportedly filed by applicant. Said order dated 18.11.2022 is now being challenged by complainant/applicant before Revisional Court which is still pending.
16. Present case is arising out of an application filed by applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that above referred purported affidavit of applicant was not sworn by her. She did not put her thumb impression. Proposed accused have imposted a woman declaring herself to be applicant who sworn the affidavit and as such an offence have committed by proposed accused persons.
17. As referred above, application was considered, however, instead of directing for lodgement of FIR, learned Magistrate opined that it could be considered as a complaint case. It is argument of learned counsel for applicant that aforesaid approach was incorrect and it was a fit case where lodgement of FIR was necessary as a thorough police investigation is required.
18. However, said submission is opposed by learned counsel for opposite parties that no prejudice is caused to applicant by impugned order and she could still record her statement and witnesses and trial Court will pass an appropriate order either under Section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C., as the case may be. Trial Court could direct investigation at the stage of Section 201 Cr.P.C.
19. Before further considering the rival submissions, few paragraphs of judgment passed by Supreme Court in XYZ vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2023) 9 SCC 705 are quoted below :-
"18. Second, we deal with the issue of the discretion granted to a Magistrate vis-à-vis the exercise of powers under Section 156(3)CrPC. On this issue, the High Court has held that the JMFC was not under an obligation to direct the police to register the FIR and the use of the expression "may" in Section 156(3)CrPC indicated that the JMFC had the discretion to direct the complainant to examine witnesses under Sections 200 and 202CrPC, instead of directing an investigation under Section 156(3).
19. A Division Bench of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440] expounded upon the Magistrate's powers under Section 156(3)CrPC. In this decision, the Court noted : (SCC pp. 412-15, paras 11, 13, 15 17 & 26)
11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3)CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3)CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
***
13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Dilawar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2007) 12 SCC 641 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 330] . We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3)CrPC, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order(s) as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3)CrPC.
***
15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII CrPC. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.
***
17. In our opinion Section 156(3)CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3)CrPC, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
***
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3)CrPC or other police officer referred to in Section 36CrPC. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3)CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200CrPC. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?"
(emphasis supplied)
20. It is clear from the above extract that the Magistrate has wide powers under Section 156(3) which ought to be exercised towards meeting the ends of justice. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Srinivas Gundluri v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn. [Srinivas Gundluri v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn., (2010) 8 SCC 206 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 652] , further clarified the powers of a Magistrate and held that whenever a cognizable offence is made out on the bare reading of complaint, the Magistrate may direct police to investigate : (SCC pp. 218-19, para 23) "23. To make it clear and in respect of doubt raised by Mr Singhvi to proceed under Section 156(3) of the Code, what is required is a bare reading of the complaint and if it discloses a cognizable offence, then the Magistrate instead of applying his mind to the complaint for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, may direct the police for investigation. In the case on hand, the learned Single Judge [Srinivas Gundluri v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn., 2009 SCC OnLine Chh 308] and the Division Bench [Srinivas Gundhuri v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn., WA No. 281 of 2009, order dated 1-4-2010 (Chh)] of the High Court rightly pointed out that the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the complaint for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding and, therefore, we are of the view that the Magistrate has not committed any illegality in directing the police for investigation. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that while directing the police to register FIR, the Magistrate has committed any illegality. As a matter of fact, even after receipt of such report, the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(b) may or may not take cognizance of offence. In other words, he is not bound to take cognizance upon submission of the police report by the investigating officer, hence, by directing the police to file charge-sheet or final report and to hold investigation with a particular result cannot be construed that the Magistrate has exceeded his power as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 156.""
20. It would also be appropriate to mention few paragraphs of judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Mona Panwar vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General, (2011) 3 SCC 496 which has been relied upon by learned Magistrate in impugned order.
"18. When the complaint was presented before the appellant, the appellant had mainly two options available to her. One was to pass an order as contemplated by Section 156(3) of the Code and the second one was to direct examination of the complainant upon oath and the witnesses present, if any, as mentioned in Section 200 and proceed further with the matter as provided by Section 202 of the Code. An order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation under Section 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 and ends with the final report either under Section 169 or submission of charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code. A Magistrate can under Section 190 of the Code before taking cognizance ask for investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the Code. The Magistrate can also issue warrant for production, before taking cognizance. If after cognizance has been taken and the Magistrate wants any investigation, it will be under Section 202 of the Code.
19. The phrase "taking cognizance of" means cognizance of an offence and not of the offender. Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint or on a police report or upon information of a person other than a police officer. Before the Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code, he must have not only applied his mind to the contents of the complaint presented before him, but must have done so for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 and the provisions following that section. However, when the Magistrate had applied his mind only for ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code or issued a warrant for the purposes of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of an offence.
20. Taking cognizance is a different thing from initiation of the proceedings. One of the objects of examination of the complainant and his witnesses as mentioned in Section 200 of the Code is to ascertain whether there is prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such person. Such examination is provided, therefore, to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding further."
21. Applicant in application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has alleged that proposed accused persons have imposted a woman in place of applicant and executed an affidavit that she has no objection to final report. Complainant has also alleged that photograph put on affidavit was not of her nor she has put her left thumb impression. Proposed accused have committed a forgery and prepared a forged document and placed before learned Magistrate and as such a serious offence was committed before Court. As such it is required thorough police investigation. For reference, relevant part of application is quoted below :-
"प्रार्थिनी को अधिवक्ता के माध्यम से मुकदमे की नकल प्राप्त करने पर ज्ञात हुआ कि मुल्जिमान इफ्तेखार, कलीम, यासीन, इल्यास ने सोची समझी स्कीम व षडयंत्र के तहत प्रार्थिनी के स्थान पर किसी अन्य महिला को न्यायालय श्रीमान ए० सी० जे० एम० प्रथन मुरादाबाद में पेश करके और कुट रचित प्रार्थना पत्र और शपथपत्र दाखिल कर न्यायालय को धोखा देकर प्रार्थनी के मुकदमे की फाइनल रिपोर्ट सं0 198/2021 को स्वीकार करा लिया है। मुल्जिमानो द्वारा न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत शपथपत्र एवं प्रार्थना पत्र पर प्रार्थनी के अंगूठा निशान नहीं है और न ही प्रार्थनी का फोटो है और प्रार्थनी कभी न्यायालय में हाजिर नहीं हुई है। मुल्जिमानो के द्वारा षड्यन्त्र के तहत कूट रचित दस्तावेजो के आधार पर फर्जी तरीके से प्रार्थिनी के मुकदमे की फाइनल रिपोर्ट स्वीकार करा लिए जाने से प्रार्थनी को असीम हानि हुई है और प्रार्थनी बहुत अधिक परेशान है।"
22. Attempt of complainant to lodge FIR by filing an application before Superintendent of Police was failed though in view of judgment of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others, 2013 (14) SCR 713, since it was a cognizable offence, police ought to have lodged an FIR.
23. Trial Court has placed reliance on Mona Panwar (supra) and has referred the same, however, it has been observed therein that on an application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Magistrate could either direct to lodge FIR or could direct to register as a complaint mainly to ascertain that whether there is a prima facie case against accused persons on basis of contents of complaint or not.
24. Aforesaid observations were made since appellant before Supreme Court was a Judicial Magistrate and she has passed an order to treat application filed before her as a complaint case and this Court in a judgment wherein the order was under challenge passed some remarks.
25. There is no dispute that Magistrate has discretion to pass direction for lodgement of FIR on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or treated as a complaint as well as Magistrate has also a discretion while proceeding to call investigation report from police.
26. Facts in present case are different since the applicant has made specific allegation of forgery committed by accused persons. They have imposted a woman declaring her to be the applicant and not only put a forged photograph but her thumb impression also and such an affidavit was filed before Court. Therefore, from the facts as narrated in complaint, it is indicated that proposed accused have committed serious offence that they have allegedly tried to mislead the Court by putting forged documents.
27. In this regard, observations of Supreme Court in XYZ (supra) would be relevant that in such cases where contents of application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. not only disclosed that a cognizable offence was committed but bare facts of complaint clearly indicate that there is a need for thorough police investigation, then the discretion granted in Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can only be read as it being the Magistrate duty to order the police to investigate. Further, trial Court has not appreciated contents of complaint in its correct perspective and failed to consider that contents of complaint and allegation show prima facie that a serious offence has been committed by proposed accused persons that they have allegedly committed a forgery and prepared a forged affidavit which was filed before the Court. As such, bare facts indicate that it requires police investigation and for that learned Magistrate does not require to wait till stage of 202 Cr.P.C. and it ought to have been exercised his discretion to direct for police investigation.
28. Outcome of above discussion is that this application is allowed and impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Misc. Case No. 522/2023 (Saida vs. Iftekar and others), Police Station- Thakurdwara, District- Moradabad is set aside and it is directed that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by applicant be considered and concerned SHO and Superintendent of Police, Moradabad are directed to lodge FIR on basis of contents made in application and proceed further for investigation in accordance with law.
29. A copy of this order be sent to concerned Magistrate as well as concerned Superintendent of Police for compliance.
30. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- July 09, 2024 N. Sinha [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]