Ram Anuj Dubey vs State of U.P.

K.N. Sinha, J.—The present application has been filed against the order dated 19.4.2003, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, whereby he directed to register the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. as complaint.

The brief fact giving rise to this application is that an application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. was moved by applicant for registration of the case and investigation. The C.J.M., Bhadohi, ordered for registering the case as a complaint case.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the procedure of complaint case and application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. is quite different and the C.J.M., Bhadohi, has without caring for this, passed the impugned order. In support of the contention, he has relied upon two case laws.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the present application has been filed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the impugned order.

In the case of Mahboob Ali v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2001 (1) JIC 470 (All), it has been held that the scope of application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. and that of complaint are different. The facts of the case referred to in the case of Mahboob Ali (supra) are similar to those of the present case. In that too, the applicant had moved an application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure which was ordered to be registered as a complaint.

In the above case, the order of the Magistrate was set aside and he was directed to pass proper order.

In the case of Dinesh Chandra and Ors. v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) ACrR 2434: 2001 (1) JIC 942 (All), it was held that the powers u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. are quite different to the power u/s 200, Cr. P.C. The case of Madhu Bala Vs. Suresh Kumar and others, was fully discussed in the case of Dinesh Chandra and Ors. (supra) and it was held as follows:

The Apex Court has definitely not used the term complaint to thwart or defeat the purpose behind the enactment of Section 156(3) itself. The term was never used with any intention that the reference order appears to channelise. Thus, in my view it should be an application and not a complaint.

Thus, the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra and Ors. (supra) clarified the position of complaint u/s 200, Cr. P.C. and application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. I, therefore, find that the learned C.J.M., Bhadohi, exceeded the jurisdiction in registering the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. as a complaint. The application is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 19.4.2003 so far as it relates to registration of application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. as a complaint case is quashed. The C.J.M., Bhadohi, is directed to proceed and pass appropriate order on the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. at an early date.