JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.
2. Since only a question of law is involved in this case, therefore, in agreement of with both the parties, this revision is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself and is decided finally by this order.
3. The question of law involved in this case is as to what is the scope and power of the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. But before adverting to the said contention, which constitute legal submission raised by both sides, a narration of the facts seems to be indispensable must.
4. Rajwati wife of Ajay Pal Singh is the resident of village Angadpur, P.S. Sakit, district Etah. On 20.2.2006 her son Shankar Bhan Singh was attempted to be annihilated by firing murderous shots at him by Radhey Shyam and Ors. in which Shankar Bhan Singh sustained serious injuries. A report of the said incident was lodged at P.S. Sakit. To save their skin from the aforesaid crime, which resulted in the registration of the case against the malefactors, Radhey Shyam accused in the aforesaid case managed a false medical and x-ray report of one Mukesh Kumar prepared and thereafter lodged a FIR against Pratap Bhan @ Rakesh another son of Rajwati. On coming to know of the false medical and x-ray reports Rajwati made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Etah for getting Mukesh Kumar re-examined medically. Though Mukesh Kumar got himself medically examined again but he refused to submit himself for being re-x-rayed. The filing of the aforesaid re-medical examination application Radhey Shyam and Ors. malefactors nurtured a feeling of revenge. On 30.5.2006 at about 7.30 A.M. Radhey Shyam accompanied bv Ram Singh, Ram Sewak, Jabar Singh, Sarjoo etc. armed with firearm weapons, lathiand danda reached at the house of Rajwati and committed dacoity in her house of cloths, ornaments and cash of Rs. 5,000/-. On resistance being shown by her daughter-in-law Smt. Sunita and her husband Ajai Kumar, they were assaulted. Hue and cry of victims attracted Shaitan Singh, Surajmukhi, Kamal Singh etc. who saved their lives. The revisionist Rajwati was threatened for her life, if she does not with draw her application for re medical examination of Mukesh Kumar. Ajay Kumar and Sunita the two injured were got medically examined in Government District Hospital Etah. The police refused to register the FIR, which was attempted to be lodged by Smt. Rajwati. Consequently, left with no other option Smt. Rajwati sent a written application to SSP Etah through speed post. She attempted to get the FIR lodged under the orders of superior authority but with no results. Consequently, as a last chance Smt. Rajwati the present revisionist wielded the power of the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. on 28.6.2006 on which Misc. Case No. 96 of 2006 was registered before Special Judge (D.A.A.) Etah. She appended the medical report of the two injured persons alorigwith her application Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, which indicated that Ajay Kumar had sustained four injuries; two contusions and two abrasions and Smt. Sunita had sustained four contusions. The aforesaid application Under Section 156(3) was rejected by Special Judge (D.A.A.) Etah vide his impugned order 21.7.2006 by passing the following order:
Heard and perused the record and the police report as for which already C'S is said to have been submitted against the son of applicant. It is also on the record that both parties are in enmity and to tease each other they often move false applications to drag the other party into litigation. In the light of the police report no prima-facie cognizable offence appears to have been committed hence application is liable to be rejected.
5. Aggrieved by the rejection of the aforesaid application the revisionist has approached this Court in its inherent jurisdiction Under Section 397/401 Cr. P.C. by filing the present revision.
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. falls imder the Chapter VII of the Court Title as "Information To The Police and their Power of Investigation" Section 156(3) is qualified by words "any Magistrate" and "order such an investigation as above-mentioned." These words clearly indicate that investigation Under Section 156(3) is referable to the same investigation which is contemplated 156(1) Cr. P.C. Under Section 156(1) Cr. P.C. the police has got the power to investigate any cognizable offence even without an order from the concerned Magistrate. It is the mandate of law Under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. that the officer-in-charge of a police station must register each and every information relating to a cognizable offence whether they are given orally or in writing and whether the accused is named thereunder or not, It is under 156(1) Cr. P.C. that the police officer is mandated by law to investigate all such informations if he has reasons to suspect commission of cognizable offence. I may point out here that once an information of cognizable offence is given to an officer--in-charge of Police Station, he has to record it in a prescribed manner provided by the respective State Government which is known as FIR. Under Section 156(1) Cr. P.C. the investigation is to be conducted by the police unless and until the officer in-charge of police station is of the opinion that the registered FIR does not require any investigation Under Section 157(2) Cr.P.C. For clearing of doubt I may mention here that registration of an FIR is one thing and investigation of the offence mention in the FIR is another. It has been held by the Privy council in case of Khwaja Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor 1945 PC page 17 as follows:
The function of the judiciary and the police are complementary and not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise it's own function, always, of course, subject to the right, of the court to intervene in appropriate case }when moved under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, to give direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus.
6. In celebrated case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Crl.) page 426 in para 31 and 33 their Lordships have been pleased to lay down the law thus:
31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the code, the concerned police officer can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the code to investigate, subject to the proviso to section 157....In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register, a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duly cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the superintendent of police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.
33. It is. therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfy ins the requirements of Section 154(1) of the code the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.
(Under line Emphasis Supplied).
7. In paragraphs 41,48 and 49 of the aforesaid judgment the Supreme 7 Court has been further pleased to hold that Police cannot refuse the registration of commission of cognizable offence but for entering into an investigation, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station has reasons to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence.
8. The same view of the apex court was re-iterated in the case of Janta Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary 1993 SCC (Crl) 36.
9. In view of the law laid down by the apex court it is clear that at the stage Under Section 156(3) the Judicial Magistrate is required to look into the application Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. only with a view to form prima-facie opinion that the cognizable offence is disclosed in it or not. His power under the aforesaid section does not travel beyond that purview as has been held by the apex court in the aforesaid case since he had to order for the investigation of the offence under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. and it can be done only when the police has already registered the FIR Under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. Thus the power of the Magistrate does not travel beyond the scope of Section 156(1) Cr. P.C. It was for him to direct the police to exercise their power of investigation and follow the mandate of law. Power under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. has been conferred on the Magistrate to check the arbitrary action of the police in matters of registration of FIR of cognizable offences since crime prevention and crime detection is the primary and for most duty of the police. Magistrates must see that the police in matters of crime follow, without fail, the law. By not doing so the Special Judge (DAA) in the present case has eschew its responsibility and committed a miscarriage of justice. The police report at the stage of Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is of no value as the police will never succumb and admit its illegal action of non-registering the FIR of cognizable offence at the earlier occasion. Special Judge (DAA) wrongly and illegally relied upon the police report to thwart a legitimate prosecution of the offenders.
10. In view of what has been stated above the impugned order under challenge cannot be sustained in law. Special Judge (DAA) has travel beyond the scope of the power Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Special Judge (D.A.A.) lacked the power to give finding as has been recorded by him in the impugned order. In view of the above the present revision deserves to be allowed.
11. Resultantly this revision is allowed.
12. The impugned order dated 21.7.2006 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.) Etah in Miscellaneous Case No. 96 of 2006 filed by Smt. Rajwati is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to him to reconsider the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and pass a reasoned order thereon in accordance with law.