Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14805 of 2018 Applicant :- Aas Mohammad Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Irfanul Huda,Shamim Ahmad Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Irfanul Huda, learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2017, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Case No. 488/12 of 2015 (Aas Mohammad Vs. V.K. Vajpayi and Others), under Section 156 (3) I.P.C, District Basti From the record, it appears that the applicant failed an application dated 20.1.2018, in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. stating threrein that on 20.10.2017 and 30.12.2017, criminality was committed upon the applicant by the opposite parties, which was in the nature of an offence, which is cognizable. Accordingly, by means of the aforesaid application, it was prayed by the applicant that directions be issued to the Police of the concerned Police Station to register an F.I.R. in respect of criminality alleged against the opposite parties and accordingly, investigate the same.
The aforesaid application filed by the applicant came to be decided by the Magistrate vide order dated 23.12.2017, whereby it was directed that the application filed by the applicant shall be treated as a complaint case. Magistrate was of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be justifiable to direct Police Investigation. The Magistrate relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2007 (59) ACC 739 in support of proposition that it is the discretion of the Magistrate to register an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint or an F.I.R.. The Magistrate, further recorded a finding that the facts alleged in the complaint, it appears to be appropriate to register the application as a complaint and condduct the enquiry by himself.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the controversy involved in the present case stands answered by the judgement of the Apex court in the Case of Lalita Kumari Vs Goverment of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in view of the nature of the allegations made by the applicant in the application filed in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate ought to have allowed the application and directed the police of Police Station concerned, to investigate into the matter and thereafter submit a report.
Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. provide the procedure for registration and investigation of complaint. The same are quoted herein under:-
"154. Information in cognizable cases- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.:
[Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, Section 326B, Section 354, Section 354A, Section 354B, Section 354C, Section 354D, Section 376, Section 376A, Section 376B, Section 376C, Section 376D, Section 376E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that -
(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354A, Section 354B, Section 354C, Section 354D, Section 376, Section 376A, Section 376B, Section 376C, Section 376D, Section 376E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of Section 164 as soon as possible].
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
156. Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case.
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned."
From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the police can investigate into matters relating to commission of 'cognizable offences' brought to its notice under section 154 CrPC. Officer-in-charge of police station has power to investigate U/S 156(1) in such case. Magistrate has power to take cognizance u/s 190 CrPC on receiving the 'complaint'. Thus the matter relating to section 156 (3) relates to power of Magistrate to order investigation by police in matters relating to cognizable offences brought before it through complaint. Complaint has been defined in section 2(d) CrPC of as follows : "complaint' means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a Police report." Code of Criminal Procedure has given different type of powers to deal with such matters relating to commission of cognizable offences when brought before it.
A Division bench of this Court in the case of ''Sukhwasi v.
State of U.P., 2007(59) ACC 739' held as under:
"Applications under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are coming in torrents. Provisions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. They should not be used unless there is something unusual and extra ordinary like miscarriage of justice which warrants a direction to the Police to register a case. Such application should not be allowed because the law provides them with an alternative remedy of filing a complaint, therefore, recourse should not normally be permitted for availing the provisions of section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate".
However, the said judgement does not provide any reason as to why FIR should not be registered in respect of a cognizable offence.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs Goverment of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1. He has relied upon paragraph 111 of the aforesaid judgement, which is reproduced herein under:-
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
"i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) 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.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
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."
However subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava (Supra) in paragraphs 27 and 28 has observed as follows:
"27. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, it needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. The present is a case where the accused persons are serving in high positions in the Bank. We are absolutely conscious that the position does not matter, for nobody is above the law. But, the learned Magistrate should take note of the allegations in entirety, the date of incident and whether any cognizable case is remotely made out. It is also to be noted that when a borrower of the financial institution covered under the Sarfaesi Act, invokes the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC and also there is a separate procedure under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, an attitude of more care, caution and circumspection has to be adhered to.
28. Issuing a direction stating "as per the application" to lodge an FIR creates a very unhealthy situation in society and also reflects the erroneous approach of the learned Magistrate. It also encourages unscrupulous and unprincipled litigants, like Respondent 3, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, to take adventurous steps with courts to bring the financial institutions on their knees. As the factual exposition would reveal, Respondent 3 had prosecuted the earlier authorities and after the matter is dealt with by the High Court in a writ petition recording a settlement, he does not withdraw the criminal case and waits for some kind of situation where he can take vengeance as if he is the emperor of all he surveys. It is interesting to note that during the tenure of Appellant 1, who is presently occupying the position of Vice-President, neither was the loan taken, nor was the default made, nor was any action under the Sarfaesi Act taken. However, the action under the Sarfaesi Act was taken on the second time at the instance of the present Appellant 1. We are only stating about the devilish design of Respondent 3 to harass the appellants with the sole intent to avoid the payment of loan. When a citizen avails a loan from a financial institution, it is his obligation to pay back and not play truant or for that matter play possum. As we have noticed, he has been able to do such adventurous acts as he has the embedded conviction that he will not be taken to task because an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is a simple application to the court for issue of a direction to the investigating agency. We have been apprised that a carbon copy of a document is filed to show the compliance with Section 154(3), indicating it has been sent to the Superintendent of Police concerned."
Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear that the Magistrate is required to deal with the application with a judicial mind regarding the contents of the application and then arrive at a conclusion as to whether the application merits the registration of an F.I.R.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the law on the subject as crystallized by the judgements of the Apex Court referred to above, no illegality or irregularity can be said to be committed by the Magistrate in directing that application under Section 156 (2) filed by the applicant shall be treated as a complaint and accordingly, tried as a complaint case.
For all the reasons given herein above, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.9.2018 Arshad