Braham Singh Saini vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

The application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. has been filed by revisionist Braham Singh Saini before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 674/11 of 2006, Braham Singh Saini v. Naresh and others Miscellaneous Case No. 674/11 of 2006. The said application did disclose the commission of a cognizable offence which the police did not register as F.I.R. by flouting the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal''s case. The Magistrate also committed a manifest error of law in passing the impugned order dated 8.11.2006 in the said Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 674/11 of 2006, Braham Singh Saini v. Naresh and others. The Magistrate was expected to direct the police to observe the law by following mandate of law u/s 154(1), Cr. P.C. The Magistrate by passing the impugned order gave long rope to the police to refuse the registration of F.I.R. of cognizable offences, which is not the law. The Magistrate was approached only with a prayer to direct the police to register the case and investigate the same as it disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence u/s 364, I.P.C. The impugned order passed by the Magistrate, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. Filing of a complaint and prosecution of the same is the sole domain of the complainant. The complainant cannot be compelled to file a complaint in the Court. It is reminded that prosecution of the complaint case is also the responsibility of the complainant. In the absence of complainant even his complaint can be dismissed and the accused can be discharged and/or acquitted u/s 249/256, Cr. P.C. In this case the revisionist never wanted to file a complaint and therefore the Magistrate was powerless to start the lis on his own.

In the view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 8.11.2006 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 674/11 of 2006, Braham Singh Saini v. Naresh and others Case No. 674/11 of 2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to him to reconsider the application of the revisionist u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. and pass a reasoned order thereon in accordance with law.