Shyam Lal Jaiswal vs State of U.P.

K.N. Sinha, J.—The present application has been filed against the order dated 27-2-2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case Crime No. 865 of 2003 whereby he directed to register the application u/s 156(3), Cr.P.C. as complaint.

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

Being aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the impugned order. The impugned order is bad in the eyes of law for two reasons. Firstly the C.J.M., Mirzapur has not applied his mind while passing the order. Secondly he has referred to certain authorities of this Court and that of Apex Court but it appears that he has not properly gone through those authorities.

In the case of Mahboob Ali v. State of U.P., reported in 2001 AC 470. 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 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), Cr. P.C. which was ordered to be registered as a complaint.

In view of the above authority the order of the Magistrate was set aside and he was ordered to pass proper order. It appears that the learned C.J.M., Mirzapur has, though cited the above authority but not cared to go through the same properly.

In the case of Dinesh Chandra v. State of U.P. 2001 AC 942, was it 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 (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 (supra) clarified the position of complaint u/s 200, Cr. P.C. and application under-S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. I, therefore, find that the learned C.J.M., Mirzapur exceeded the jurisdiction in registering the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. as a complaint. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 27-2-2003 so far as it relates to registration of application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. as a complaint case as quashed. The C.J.M., Mirzapur is directed to proceed and pass appropriate order on the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. at an early date.