JUDGMENT Umeshwar Pandey, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and leaned A.G.A.
2. In this petition the order dated 15.4.2005 of the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura is under challenge.
3. The learned counsel contends that the petition before the Chief judicial magistrate concerned disclosing certain facts, which prima facie projects a story of commission of cognizable offence of murder. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned after hearing the petitioner, did not find force with the prayer made for the direction of investigation in the matter and as such he dismissed the petition. Against that order, it is contended that the petitioner went in revision before the Sessions Judge concerned, who on the same ground has rejected the revision stating that the petitioner did not have any locus for putting in his prayer under Section 156(3) before the Magistrate. It is submitted by the learned counsel that such a reasoning, as given by the courts below, appears to be ridiculous in the light of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. He has referred to the provisions of Section 39 Cr.P.C. and has also drawn the attention of the court to the provisions of 176 of I.P.C.
4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the revisional court as well as the order passed by the chief Judicial Magistrate, shows that both the court have concurrently held that the petitioner did not have any locus for moving the court of Magistrate Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and as such, the petitioner's prayer before both the courts below has been dismissed. In fact, the story as disclosed in the petition and given before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. states that one Girdhar was murdered by his son and other family members, the knowledge of which was had by the petitioner after some time. This offence being a serious offence of cognizable nature, if has come to the notice of the petitioner, he is definitely bound under Section 39 Cr.P.C. to give the information of the same to the competent Magistrate or the Police officer. The extract of the aforesaid Section 39(1) Cr.P.C. is as below:-
Public to give information of certain offences - (1) Every person, aware of the commission of, or of the intention of any other person to commit, any offence punishable under any of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely:.........
(v) Section 302, 303 and 304 (that is to say, offences affecting file).........
Shall, in the absence of any reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie upon the person so aware, forthwith give information to the nearest Magistrate or police of such Commission or intention;
5. In view of the aforesaid specific statutory mandate if the petitioner has come to know of commission of cognizable offence he was bound to give information to the same and thus to make prayer before the competent Magistrate for direction of investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In case, the petitioner deliberately or without any excuse abstains from giving such information, as stipulated aforesaid under Section 39(1) Cr.P.C., he virtually commits the offence punishable under Section 176 I.P.C. With this legal position at hand, the petitioner was actually duty bound under the statute to give information to the Magistrate. Such under the statute to give information to the Magistrate. Such Magistrate, however, is not supposed to reject that information simply on the ground that the petitioner did not have any locus in the matter. In this context, the case law of Raja Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2004 (49) A.C.C. 847, is relevant.
6. Whether or not the petitioner was related to the deceased Girdhar or he has one or the other connection with him, if an information of commission of murder of Girdhar has been given by the petitioner to the court, the required directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation of the case should in all reasonableness had to be given by the court. The revisional court by rejecting the revision of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground of locus being not available to him for moving the court with a prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., appears to be grossly erroneous. The entire relevant legal framework in this context should have been taken into account by the courts below and they should not have passed the orders so cursorily in such a serious matter.
7. In result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.4.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mathura is hereby set aside. It is however, directed that the Sessions Judge concerned shall take up the matte and reconsider it in the light of the Aforesaid observations within ten days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.