Sadhuram Rai vs State of M.P. and Others

Brij Kishore Dube, J.—This petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 331/2012, affirmed the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by J.M.F.C. Gwalior by which the application of petitioner filed u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Short facts of the case are that Nekiram, who was the brother of the petitioner, Sadhuram Rai died on 05.06.2012 at 7.30 am. A written complaint of his murder was submitted by the petitioner before the police, but the police has not taken any action, therefore, an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed on 02.07.2012 seeking a direction against the concerned police officer to investigate the cognizable offence before J.M.F.C. Gwalior. The application was considered and dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.07.2012, which reads as under:-

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted revision before the Court of Sessions and vide order dated 14.08.2012, the same was dismissed on the ground that the order made u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and, therefore, revision is barred u/s 397(2) of Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a written complaint in respect of cognizable offence, therefore, the police is under an obligation to register a case, but in spite of repeated request the police has not registered the case against the suspected accused persons, therefore, the petitioner filed an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. but the Court below without considering the seriousness of the cognizable offence has erroneously dismissed the application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Madhu Bala Vs. Suresh Kumar and others, and a decision of this Court in Giridhari Lal Kanak Vs. State and Others, .

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 has argued in support of the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 6 has submitted that the petitioner has not filed any complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate. He has filed simple application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in respect of murder of Nekiram, and his daughter, Chhaya (respondent No. 4) has filed complaint under Sections 306, 420, 323, 294, 506B, 120B, 34 and 511 of IPC against the accused persons including the petitioner herein and the statement under Sections 200 & 202 was recorded by J.M.F.C. Gwalior. Such complaint is under inquiry.

In the case of Girdhari Lal Kanak (supra), this Court while considering the scope of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. held that it is obligatory of the police under law to register FIR in respect of cognizable offence. In the case of Madhu Bala (supra), it has been ruled by the Apex Court that whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a complaint, the police has to register a cognizable case on that complaint treating the same as FIR and investigate into the same.

The relevant para No. 8 reads as under:-

From the foregoing discussion it is evident that whenever a Magistrates directs an investigation on a ''complaint'' the police has to register a cognizable case on that complaint treating the same as the FIR and comply with the requirements of the above Rules. It, therefore, passes our comprehension as to how the direction of a Magistrate asking the police to ''register a case'' makes an order of investigation u/s 156(3) legally unsustainable. Indeed, even if a Magistrate does not pass a direction to register a case, still in view of the provisions of Section 156(1) of the Code which empowers the Police to investigate into a cognizable ''case'' and the Rules framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861 it (the police) is duty bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same. The provisions of the Code, therefore, does not in any way stand in the way of a Magistrate of direct the police to register a case at the police station and then investigate into the same. In our opinion when an order for investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code is to be made the proper direction to the Police would be to register a case at the police station treating the complaint as the First Information Report and investigate into the same.

A direction for investigation passed by Magistrate u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is purely interlocutory in nature and involves no substantial rights of the parties and remedy of revision against such order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. [ Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. and Another, referred to]

On going through the impugned order dated 16.07.2012, this Court finds that the investigation in respect of death of Nekiram is being conducted by the police and a complaint is also under inquiry before the Court.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Courts below calling any interference while exercising the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.