Court No. - 38
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3311 of 2019 Applicant :- Bhagwati Prasad Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 11.09.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.13, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 450 of 2015 (Bhagwati Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 3.9.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in complaint case no. 3404 of 2014, under sections 420, 406, 467, 471 IPC, P.S. Sikandra, District Agra.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that the applicant has filed an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court below on 01.09.2014. The statement of the complainant-applicant as well as of his witnesses have been recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The witnesses have also supported the version of the complainant but the court below illegally and wrongly ignoring the evidence produced by the applicant rejected the application under section 156(3) of the Code vide order dated 3.9.2015. Aggrieved by order dated 3.9.2015 applicant filed revision before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Agra but the same was also rejected vide order dated 11.09.2018.
Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submitted that from the perusal of the application under section 156(3) of the Code moved by the applicant, it is evident that an agreement took place in between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 with regard to purchase of some machine, wherein the applicant has spent Rs.21,000/- and the said business transaction comes within the definition of civil dispute and if the applicant has any grievance, he has right to file suit for recovery of money before the court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the order impugned, whereby the application has been rejected and the revisional court has also rejected the revision and affirmed the order of the Magistrate vide order dated 11.09.2018, therefore, the orders impugned are totally justified in law and do not warrant any interference by this Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-
respondent and perused the paper book.
It is settled proposition of law that the power of the Magistrate to give directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is discretionary and the same has to be exercised only when there is requirement of investigation/custodial interrogation by the police. If the evidence is within the reach of complainant, usually the directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are not given. The word used in the section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is "may", whereas the word used in section 154 Cr.P.C. is "shall". The wording of these sections clearly indicates that the police is bound to register an FIR, when an information regarding cognizable offence is given to the police, whereas the Magistrate is not bound to give directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., even though the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offences as the Magistrate has to see whether the investigation by the police is required or not in the given case.
From the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court finds that the orders dated 03.09.2015 and 11.09.2018 has been passed by the court below after considering each and every aspect of the matter, therefore, the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the application section 482 Cr.P.C. is
dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.1.2019 Prajapati [Chandra Dhari Singh, J]