Court No. - 24
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 418 of 2019 Petitioner :- Manorama Devi Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the impugned orders dated 17.11.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, rejecting the application of the petitioner moved under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and order dated 07.12.2018 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Jude, Mau, whereby the criminal revision no.139 of 2018 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner moved application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure making several allegations against the respondent nos.2 and 3 on 04.02.2017 in counterblast to the first information report lodged by respondent no.2 against the husband of the petitioner, which was registered vide case crime no. 2061 of 2016, under sections 506, 384 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mau, and the learned Magistrate illegally without considering the facts of the case rejected the application. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2017 the petitioner has preferred criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mau but the same was also rejected without considering the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner and the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, both the orders passed by the courts below deserve to be set aside.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Magistrate has prima facie satisfied that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is with a view to put pressure upon the respondents to compromise the matter, hence the Magistrate has rightly rejected the said application and the revisional court also found that there is no illegality in the said order, in view of this, present petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
In the present case, it is admitted position that there is some civil dispute between the parties and learned Magistrate has found that all the facts are within the knowledge of the petitioner regarding which he can produce evidence and, as such, application filed by the petitioner under section 156 (3) CR.P.C. was rightly rejected by the court below and in this regard specific reasons have been assigned by him in the order impugned. The said order has been challenged before the revisional court and revisional court has also after appreciating the facts and evidences on record, affirmed the order of learned Magistrate.
The court below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prima-facie found that the petitioner has moved the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondent nos.2 and 3 only to put pressure upon them to compromise the matter, hence no case for issuing direction is made out and accordingly, the application was rejected vide order dated 17.11.2017 and in the revision, the Additional Sessions Judge, Mau also evaluated the evidence adduced by the petitioner and thereafter dismissed the revision.
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.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the orders impugned as well averments made in the present petition, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any legal infirmity in the orders impugned or any ground, which may warrant any interference by this Court.
Writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Prajapati [Chandra Dhari Singh, J]