Heard learned counsel for the Revisionist, learned AGA for the State, respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist before the learned Magistrate with the averments that she is Shishya (Pupil) of Shri Shri 1008 Guru Mangala Nand Saraswati since last 16 to 17 years and was doing Puja Work at his residence. Her Guru went two years before. About 15 days before some land mafiyas with an intention to take forcible possession on the Ashram ousted her from the Ashram and misappropriated her valuables and they have not permitted her to enter into the Ashram and they wrongfully confined Guruji also without any reason. She was not permitted even to see her Guruji . She made a complaint to the authorities of district but no heed was paid, so an application under Section 156(3) was moved for direction to the Police to register a case and investigate in the matter. After calling the report from the P.S. concerned and seeing that no case has been registered at Police Station, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, after relying on the law laid down in Division Bench decision and also other cases in place of direction to the Police of the P.S. concerned to register case and investigate in the matter, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. itself was treated as complaint case and asked the complainant- revisionist to adduce evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It was further observed that if there will be a need of report of Police that will be called under the Provisions of Section 202 Cr. P.C. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been preferred.
Now it is established law that it is in the discretion of the learned Magistrate that he can register complaint case on the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in place of direction to the Police for registration of the case and investigation in the matter. In Case 2005 (52) ACC 568 Vinay Pandey vs. State also this court after considering several cases on the point had concluded that if in place of direction to the Police for investigation in the matter, complaint case is registered on the application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., there is no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the order. It is not mandatory for a Magistrate to allow each and every application. If complaint case is registered, it can not be said that door of justice are closed. Investigation order should be passed when really circumstances justify it. If mere allegations are taken to be sufficient, there would be flood of registration of cases, if applications are allowed. If only on the instances of the applicant so that opposite party should be arrested by the Police and be sent to jail, order is passed, it will not be proper. Only what is to be seen is that Magistrate has to apply his mind and if in his opinion circumstances require that investigation should be made, such order should be passed. Magistrate is not bound in each and every case of cognizable offence to pass such order. Always it is with the discretion of the Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of the case to register a Complaint case in place of direction to the police for investigation. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that revisionist is a lady and unable to do pairvi in the complaint case. It was necessary to order for investigation so that recovery of valuables which is in possession of the respondent no. 2 could be made. What were the valuables, which were taken by the respondent no. 2 in his possession, it is not cleary detailed in the Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the arguments and going through the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, I do not find any illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned order. No interference of this Court is warranted. Revision has no force and it is accordingly, hereby dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010 Kaushal