Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. By passing the order impugned the leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to allow the prayer of the complainant and accordingly it was rejected.

5. The order of rejection of petitioner's application under Section 156(3) of the Code prompted her to file the instant revision.

6. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore acted illegally and failed to exercise his jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) of the Code on the basis of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and Mukul Roy vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2019) Crlj

8. It is also submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the ratio of Lalita Kumari (supra) and Mukul Roy (supra).

9. Mr. Sekhar Kr. Basu, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the private parties at the outset draws my attention to the provision of Section 156(3) of the Code. The said provision runs thus:-

10. 156(3) - any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such investigation as part mentioned. He next has placed the provision of Section 190 of the Code which deals with cognizance of offences by Magistrate. Section 190 runs thus:-

22. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Counsel on the behalf of the private opposite parties relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Mukul Roy vs. State of West Bengal & Ors reported in (2019) Cri.L.J 245 (Cal). The said report is pronounced by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court.

23. In Paragraph 59 of the Mukul Roy's case (supra) the Hon'ble Single Judge passed the following guidelines while invoking power under Section 156(3) of the Code.

"59. Therefore, I direct that Learned Registrar General shall take immediate steps for issuance of suitable guidelines to all the Chief Judicial Magistrates, Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates through the District Sessions Judges and Metropolitan Magistrates, Calcutta of all the Districts of the State of West Bengal, which guidelines are laid down for application of judicial mind by the Learned Judicial Magistrate while invoking power under Section 156(3) of the Code, as under-

6. Learned Magistrate would also be aware of the abnormal delay in lodging of the FIR in initiating criminal prosecution."

24. In Mukul Roy (supra) the Hon'ble Single Judge in sub-paragraph 1 of the Paragraph 59 directs that the Magistrate shall verify the truth and veracity of the allegations, record being had to the nature of the allegations of the case. With all humiliation and greatest respect to the Hon'ble Judge the said direction is not in conformity with the direction made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) in Paragraph 120.5 of Lalita Kumari, the Hon'ble Single Judge clearly directs that the scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received, but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. When the police authority in case of preliminary inquiry prior to the registration of a case concerning cognizable offence is not entitled to verify the veracity, how would a Magistrate be able to verify the truth and veracity of the allegations contained in the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In view of what has been stated above and applying the ratio of Lalilta Kumari, this court holds that sub paragraph (4) of Mukul Roy's case is not a correct guideline to be followed by the Magistrate while dealing with an application under Section 156(3) of the Code.