JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.
2. The revisionist complainant Kunwar Singh is aggrieved by an order dated 30.10.2006 passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Etwah in Criminal Case No. 106 of 2006, Kunwar Singh v. Ram Sewak and Ors., under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
3. In short, the allegations of the revisionist Kunwar Singh were that on 5.6.2006 opposite party Ram Sewak his son Arvind, his brother Ram Das and Bhoop Singh brother of Arvind belaboured his father Ram Naresh at 4.00 P.M. on his roof. Medical examination of Ram Naresh was got done on 5.6.2006 at 6.55 P.M., and his medical report indicated two lacerated wounds, which were sustained by the injured. The X-ray report dated 6.6.2006 of the injured indicated that there was a fracture of his right parietal bone of skull. The F.I.R. a lodged by the revisionist complainant on 5.6.2006 at 5.05 P.M. at police station Ekdil regarding the said incident was registered as NCR. Since the F.I.R. was registered as a N.C.R. and there was a grievous injury sustained by the injured, therefore, the revisionist filed an application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1 Etawah seeking a direction from him a to the police to investigate the offence. The trial court has rejected his said application by passing the impugned order. Hence, this revision.
4. The prayer of the revisionist was rejected by the Magistrate on the basis of judgment of this Court reported in 1995 ACC page 254Naveen Chandra Panday v. State. In the aforesaid judgment it has been held by this Court that under Section 155(2) only the police has got the power to apply for making an investigation into a non-cognizable offence and the victim does not have any a such in power. The contention of learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the said ruling is against the mandate of law and the statutory provision and does not have a binding effect and should be declared per-incurrium. He relied up the judgment of this Court report in 2006 (55) ACC page 864 Brij Lal Bhar v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Lucknow and Ors.. In the aforesaid judgment of Brij Lal Bhar (supra) this Court has taken view that anybody can apply to the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. for seeking his direction for investigation by the police of his N.C.R.
5. Learned A.G.A. could not justify the impugned order passed by the Magistrate as well.
6. I have heard both the respective counsels representing the rival sides. For the sake of clarity Section 155 Cr.P.C. is quoted below:
155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases- (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non cognizable offences, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2)No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3)Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.
7. From the perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision it is absolutely clear, without any ambiguity, that no non-cognizable offence can be investigated by the police without an order passed by a Magistrate. It is nowhere provided under the said section as to who will apply for making an investigation under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. of a non-cognizable offence. The Court cannot add or substract anything in the statutory section. The court is empowered only to interpret the statute as is enacted by the legislature. The power to amend any statutory provision is the province of the legislature and not of the courts.
8. In this view of the matter, when we look at Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. we find that there is nothing in the aforesaid Section as to disentitle the complainant to approach the Court with the prayer seeking his direction to direct the police to make an investigation of his N.C.R. Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. does not provide that but for the Police Officer no other person can approach the Magistrate for seeking his direction under the aforesaid Section.
9. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the law laid down in 1995 ACC page 254Naveen Chandra Panday v. State is not a good law. On the contrary the said judgment is against the statutory provision. The law laid down by this Court in 2006 (55) ACC page 864Brij Lal Bhar v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Lucknow and Ors. lays down the correct proposition of law.
10. In view of what I have said above, this revision is allowed at the admission stage itself. The impugned order dated 3.10.2006 passed by Ist A.C.J.M. Etawah in Criminal Case No. 106/2006 Kunwar Singh v. Ram Sewak and Ors., under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court of the Magistrate to reconsider the application of the revisionist under the aforesaid Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and pass a reasoned order thereon.
11. With the aforesaid direction, this revision is allowed at the admission stage itself.