Sanjeev Rana and Others vs Virendra and Another

D.C. Srivastava, J.—On an application u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, passed the following order:

Inspector to register a case, investigate and report by 4.11.1996.

It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.

At the time of admission of the petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioners was heard at length. After considering the cases cited by him and also two cases ; one decided by a Division Bench of this Court and another by a learned single Judge of this Court, there remains little scope for holding that the impugned order is invalid or illegal.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ganesh Dass and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another, . In this case it was laid down that the Magistrate while passing order u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure is not empowered to direct the police to register first information report. This case was not considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Suraj Mal v. State of U.P. 1993 ACC 81, but in that Division Bench case, the decision of learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1990 (1) Crimes 600, was considered where also similar view was taken as in the case of Ganesh Dass (supra).

Since the Division Bench of this Court in Suraj Mal v. State of U.P. (supra) has clearly observed that a Magistrate is competent to issue direction for registration of a case u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure and further respectful disagreement was expressed by the Division Bench of this Court from the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) and further because the said Division Bench pronouncement in Suraj Mal v. State of U.P. (supra) was followed by another learned single Judge of this Court in Jagan Singh v. State of U.P. 1996 JIC 293. this Court cannot take a different view and differ from the Division Bench pronouncement of this Court.

I do not find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the matter requires reference to a Larger Bench of this Court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also placed reliance upon the case of D.L. Reddy v. V.N. Reddy 1976 SCC 380, but in this case, the Supreme Court has no where specifically laid down that a Magistrate has no power to direct registration of a case and investigation of the same. Consequently this case is of little help to the Petitioners.

For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.