Nand Lal Kesarwani and Others vs Smt. Rani Devi

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners at length and the learned A.G.A.

The order u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was passed by the Magistrate on 22.06.2006 on the application filed by respondent wherein she alleged that she is the wife of the applicant Nand Lal and she was tortured because of the illegal demand of dowry and was assaulted. Magistrate exercising powers u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. ordered for registration of the F.I.R. And investigation of the offences. The said order wad challenged by filing a revision by the present applicants, who are accused in the aforesaid case. The lower revisional court dismissed their revision vide order dated 16.5.2007 by holding that the revision at the, instance of those persons who are accused of cognizable offence Is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Rakesh Puri and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (56) 2006 A.C.C. 516. Hence this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No. 2 is not his wife and on the date of the alleged marriage the husband Nandlal was at Chennai. He further contended that fraud has been committed x>n the petitioners and no offence at all is made out against them. He has, therefore, submitted that the order for registration of the F.I.R. be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. on the contrary supported the order and contended that the order is a reasoned one.

I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides. The Apex Court not once but time and again re-iterated the law that at the state of Section 156(3) the Magistrate has got no right to go in the merits of the allegations, legality or illegality, probability or improbability of the allegations leveled. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992) S.C.C 462 paragraphs 30, 31, 33). The said law was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Superintendent of Police C.B.I. v. Tapan Kumar Singh 2001 J.I.C. (1) 174 . Recently the Apex Court has reaffirmed and reiterated the said law in the case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Others, In such a view the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the Magistrate was required to meticulously appreciate the allegations leveled in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. can not be accepted at all as the said contention is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgements.

The petitioners have got all the rights available to them before Investigating Officer: F.I.R. of a cognizable offence can not be stalled from being registered and from being investigated. The accused has got no right to be heard at this stage. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. W.N. Chchadha 1993 SCC 171 that before being summoned the accused can not be heard at all. This is the law of land.

In view of the aforesaid observations this writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.