AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 280 wordsV.K. Bali, J.
The limited challenge herein is to the order. Annexure P1, dated 2.11.1994 passed by Shri N.D. Achint, Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa wherein he entertained a petition under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered investigation/registration of the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein.
All that is being argued is that the Magistrate with the powers conferred on him by virtue of subSection (3) to Section 156 Cr.P.C. could not order registration of a case and at the most he could order investigation. It is, thus, the part of order wherein word ''registration'' of the case has been mentioned that is being agitated in the present petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Mr. Chhiber, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of petitioners vehemently contends that the Magistrate could only order investigation of the case and order directing registration of the case was beyond the powers conferred upon the learned Magistrate. For his aforestated contention, learned counsel relies on two Division Bench judgments of this Court in State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh and others, 1991(3) RCR 276 and State of Punjab v. Kashmira Singh, 1992(2) RCR 78 . Learned State counsel is unable to distinguish the judgments aforesaid. This Court is in complete agreement with the view expressed in Joginder Singh as well as Kashmira Singh''s cases (supra). That being the position, order, Annexure P1, to the extent it directs registration of the case as well, is quashed. It shall, however, be open to investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law in the matter.
This petition is allowed in the manner indicated above.