Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 156 crpc in Anmol Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors on 7 January, 2021Matching Fragments
7. I have considered the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA and perused the material brought on record.
8. In the cases of Suresh Chandra Jain vs State of M.P. and another (2001) 2 SCC 628; Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan & another another (2006) 1 SCC 627; Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & others [2001 (43) ACC 50 (FB); Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. & others [2007 (9) ADJI (DB) & Ram Dev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439 it has been laid down that the Magistrate empowered under section 190 Cr.P.C. may order an investigation by police under section 156 (3) but he need not order any such investigation if he proposes to take cognizance of the offence. Once he takes cognizance he has to follow the procedure envisaged in Chapter XV of the code. The magistrate should apply judicial mind while exercising his powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. He could not act in a mechanical or casual manner and go on with the complaint after getting the report. The course adopted by the Magistrate i.e. direction to the police for registration of FIR and making investigation or to treat the application as a complaint case, must be supported by reasons. The order must also reflect that the Magistrate on relevant considerations has adopted one of these two modes open to him.Mere mention in the order that he has gone through the complaint and the police investigation is not required or otherwise, would not be sufficient compliance of application of judicial mind while deciding application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above."
10. The case of Lalita Kumari (supra) came to be considered in Ramdev Food Products Private Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439 the first question as framed therein was "whether the discretion of the Magistrate to call for a report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. instead of directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is controlled by any defined parameters? The Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the first question by holding that the direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is to be issued only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone issuance of process and finds that a case is made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. The cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate is yet to determine existence of sufficient ground to proceed. The category of cases falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari may fall under section 202 Cr.P.C. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Court, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case. Para Nos. 22 to 22.3 of Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. (supra) is being reproduced as under:
(40.12). The investigation which the police officer or such other person makes in pursuance of the direction of the Magistrate under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is the same kind of investigation as is required to be conducted by police officer, under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. which ends with submission of the report as per Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
(40.13). The distinction between the investigation by the police officer under Section 156(3) and under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is that the former is at the pre-cognizance stage and the latter is at post cognizance stage, when the Magistrate is seisin of the case. The investigation under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or false hood of the complaint for helping the Magistrate to decide, whether or not there is sufficient ground, for him to proceed further against the accused by issuing process, whereas, the inquiry report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. of the investigation made by the police of its own or under the directions of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of enabling the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.
(40.14). Once cognizance is taken on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and he embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he would not be competent to revert to the pre-cognizance stage under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
(40.15). If the Magistrate did not order for police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the case, that would not be bar to the exercise of the power of the Magistrate for directing the police investigation under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C."