JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. The revisionist Rustam has challenged the order dated 25.11.06 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereby the C.J.M. Bareilly has refused to pass an order for registration of the FIR and investigation of the offence by the Police on the application filed by the revisionist and instead directed the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to be registered as a complaint case. The aforesaid order dated 25.11.06 passed in misc. application No. 9976 of 2006 Rustam v. Virpal, which disclosed the commission of cognizable offence under Section 304B I.P.C., P.S. Anwala, District Bareilly is under challenge in this revision.
2. The narration of facts are that the Rustam filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 12.10.06 in the Court of C.J.M. Bareilly with the allegations that he is a resident of village Bilhat, P.S. Binawar and is jatav by caste. He had married his daughter Sheela five years ago with Virpal son of Baljit resident of village Urla Rasoola, P.S. Anwala. In the marriage, the revisionist had given dowry according to his economic status. However, his daughter was tortured because of further demand of dowry and was also assaulted for the said reason. It is further alleged that at one time even the said daughter Sheela was turned out of her husband house for bringing a motorcycle or fifty thousand rupees as cash in lieu thereof. The revisionist was informed about the said incident by his daughter whereupon he went to her in-laws house and tried to pacify them. The atmosphere remained silent for the some time. Sheela was also blessed with two daughter. Meanwhile she was also tortured because she was unable to give birth to a male child. On 11.9.06 at about 8 or 8.30 A.M., the in-laws of Sheela informed Sharda, who is the jethani of Sheela that Sheela had died. However, no information was given to the revisionist, about the said demise. At the time when the information regarding the death of Sheela was being given at P.C.O., the revisionist by chance was also present on the said P.C.O. as he had gone thereto talk to his son, who is a labourer in Delhi and thus he came to know about the death of his daughter. Who was throttled to death. The informant rushed to the in-laws house of the Sheela but while he was on his way, he was informed that police had also reached on the spot. When the revisionist was moving towards village Urla, in-laws house of his deceased daughter, a police vans met him in the way and picked him up and was dropped in the way by the said police station personnels by asking him to go to the in-laws house on reaching there the revisionist did not find anybody present. The dead body of Sheela was not traced out by him. Since, the FIR was not taken down, the revisionist informed S.S.P., Bareilly and D.I.G. Bareilly through written applications on 13.9.06 but nothing happened, therefore, he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 12.10.06 before C.J.M. as has been mentioned above. The said application of the revisionist was rejected by C.J.M. on 25.11.06 which order is impugned in the instant revision.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA.
4. A perusal of the facts as is mentioned above clearly indicates that the application of the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosed commission of cognizable offences under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. Once the cognizable offence was disclosed, it was the duty of C.J.M. Bareilly to direct the police to exercise their planery power of investigation since the police had a statutory responsibility of registering the FIR of a cognizable offence and they could not have eschewed the same as is spelt out by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426. The Magistrate by not directing the police to follow the mandate of law committed a manifest error of law and it gives a long rope to the police to act arbitrarily by refusing to register the FIR of cognizable offences.
5. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed under chapter XII of Cr.P.C. which is a pre cognizance stage dealing with power of the police to investigate cognizable offences The registration of the complaint is under chapter XIV of Cr.P.C. which is a cognizable stage. The Magistrate cannot start the litigation on his own by the transforming an application at a pre cognizance stage to one under a cognizable stage as filing of a complaint and prosecution of the complaint are the rights of the complainant and hence the Magistrate cannot act against the wishes of an aggrieved person. The Magistrate lacks of power to direct the complainant to file a complaint because that is the domain of the victim on the aggrieved person. The procedure of the complaint case clearly indicates that in the event of absence of complainant even his complaint can be dismissed under Section 249/256 Cr.P.C. In the instant case the complainant never wanted to file a complaint. There may be too many reasons for it and one of the ostensible reason which seems to be that the revisionist victim was a resident of a different village of a different district whereas the accused were resident of a different place and therefore, victim may not be able to get witnesses to support his complaint. There may be too many other reasons including the reason that the revisionist may not be in a strong economic position to prosecute the complaint. He may not be in a position to bring the witness to the Court. He may be even wanting the matter to be investigated thoroughly. In this view of the matter instead of filing the complaint the aggrieved person opted for praying to the Magistrate to get the FIR registered and get the offence investigated. His application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act and, therefore, the Magistrate was under the mandate of law to direct the police to register the FIR and investigate the offence and by not ordering so the Magistrate committed an illegality and acted beyond the scope of his jurisdiction. The Apex Court of Central Bureau Of Investigation, Through its S.P. Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan 2001 SCC (Cr.) 524 has laid down the law that the power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. do not travel beyond the scope of the power to direct the police to register and investigate the offence which it had to conduct under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C., There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which confers power on the Magistrate to suo motu start the litigation as a complaint case on his own, without prayer being made for the same by the aggrieved person. The C.J.M. Bareilly by doing this acted against the provisions of law. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) as well as in the case of Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhari 1993 SCC (Cr.) 36 that if the police do not register the FIR of cognizable offence it flouts the law and the provisions of the statute and, therefore, the Magistrate was under legal obligation to direct the police to act in accordance with law.
6. In view of what I have stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside. Resultantly, this revision is allowed.
7. The impugned order dated 25.11.06 passed by C.J.M. Bareilly in misc case No. 9976 of 2006 (Rustam v. Virpal), under Section 304B I.P.C., P.S. Anwala, District Bareilly pending in the Court of C.J.M. Bareilly is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Magistrate concerned to take up the application of the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. afresh and decide it in accordance with law.