JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State,
2. The order dated 27.8.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been challenged, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to register the case.
3. The argument on behalf of the applicant is that an application was filed by the applicant bringing facts and allegations against the accused to the notice of the Magistrate, which constitute an offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Down Prohibition Act, Police Station Utraon, District Allahabad. The I allegation of demand of dowry and the victim being subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry was made out and the Magistrate was absolutely wrong while examining the merits of the , case. The prayer for registering the first information report was refused for want of injury report and also after sifting the evidence regarding the demand of dowry. Counsel for the applicant emphasized that once , fact is brought to the notice of the Magistrate and on the basis of allegations prima facie cognizable offence is made out, then the Magistrate is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations.
4. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the applicant on a number of decisions of this Court. The first decision is, Kamaluddin v. State of U.P., 2005 (1) J.I.C.. 336, (Alld.). In the said case, this Court observed that it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to direct the registration' of the case and to investigate, in the event, a pentsai of application discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Another case relied upon by the counsel is, Rajendra Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. 1994 J.I.C., 216 paragraph 9. Several other final orders passed by this Court disposing of the applications have been brought to my notice. In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1412 of 2005. Zaved v. State of U.P. and Ors., this Court remanded the case and directed the Magistrate concerned for afresh decision vide order dated 14.2.2005, The order refusing to register and investigate the offence despite a cognizable offence was made out on the basis of the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was set aside In another Criminal Misc. Application No. 11987 of 2005, a similar order was passed on 5.9.2005 and also in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10179 of 2004, the case was remanded to the Magistrate to consider afresh.
5. In the instant case, the Magistrate has taken the pains to go into details and evidence of the allegations and also whether the offence will be made out on the basis of the evidence, besides that the allegations do not appear to be natural. These questions are to be gone into by the Magistrate after the completion of the investigation and after the charge sheet is filed. The Magistrate should not assume the role of a trial court while passing the orders on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On perusal, if it appears to the Magistrate that the allegations prima facie constitute a cognizable offence and it requires investigation by the police, the Magistrate is under obligation to direct the police station concerned to register the case and investigate the same.
6. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 27.8.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass afresh orders in accordance with law.
7. With these observations, this application is finally disposed of.