Munni Devi vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The applicant has moved this petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.8.2011 whereby the Misc. Application No. 83 of 2011 moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was illegally rejected by the court below.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in respect of an incident dated 15.5.2011 when the opposite parties 2 to 4 have committed loot at pistol point and escaped with the gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 400/-, from the applicant the applicant tried to lodge the first information report of the incident but no report was lodged even no action was taken by the higher authorities, hence moved application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Mainpuri on 24.5.2011 to direct the police concern to lodge a first information report. The court below has illegally rejected the application after calling report from the police that no prima facie offence is made out against the proposed accused and rejected the application by order dated 12.8.2011. The accused perosns have committed offence of loot from the applicant and taken away gold ornaments and cash, which requires investigation but the court below has rejected the application.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel at the bar. From the perusal of the application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the applicant who was robbed by the opposite parties 2 to 4 at pistol point and escaped from the spot. The applicant tried to lodge the first information report but her first information report was not taken down. Consequently the applicant approached the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Mainpuri seeking his direction for registration of her first information report and investigation as the recovery of ornaments and cash looted was to be made. The said application has been rejected by order dated 12.8.2011 by the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Mainpuri, which has been impugned in this Criminal Misc. Application.

The power u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in accordance with law. The Magistrate has got no right to refuse the prayer to direct the police to register the first information report of a cognizable offnece, if facts disclosed before him make out a cognizable offence. The power u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. being a precognizance stage, the meticulous analysis has brought injustice to the applicant at the hands of law. The discretionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner making impugned order vulnerable and untenable in law. The Hon''ble Apex Court''s judgment is that the first information report of all cognizable offences must be registered. At the same time the Magistrate has a discretion to treat an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.

In view of the case of Sakiri Basu Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2008 (6) ACC 689 the applicant is an aggrieved person who had moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. could have been directed to be investigated by the police after registration of the case or the Magistrate had an option to treat the same as complaint but the Magistrate has outright rejected the application of the applicant, therefore, the order passed by the court below is not legally sustainable and as such is hereby quashed and the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Mainpuri is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

With the above directions this petition is disposed of finally.