Ravendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned A.GA. for the State and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by A.C.J.M, Court No. 7, Aligarh in Misc. Application No. 60/11 of 2011 (Ravendra Singh v. Chalak Bolero, No. HR17 4974.

The application u/s 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that there were contradictions in the contents of the application and the report received from the police station. Revision has also been dismissed.

It was alleged in the application that vehicle No. HR 17 4974, which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle of the complainant from behind causing accident and injuries. The author of the crime is not known. In such cases, the police investigation was a must. The police was asked to submit a report as to whether any F.I.R. has been lodged or not. The police was not justified in making comments about the merits of the case without investigation and the learned Magistrate was also not justified in rejecting the application u/s 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure Since the accused was unknown, there was no option for the Magistrate except to direct registration of the F.I.R. so that proper investigation may be done and guilty may be brought to book. Learned Magistrate committed cross illegality in rejecting the application. Similar mistake was committed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Both the impugned orders are absolutely illegal and unjustified.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.5.2011 passed by A.C.J.M, Court No. 7, Aligarh is quashed.

Learned A.G.A. conceded that in the case of this nature, investigation ought to have been ordered.

Learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order for registration of the F.I.R. on the basis of an application of the Petitioner u/s 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure