NATHOO LAL GANGWAR S/O RAM BHAROSE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND PRAMOD 

NATHOO LAL GANGWAR S/O RAM BHAROSE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND PRAMOD 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The application has been filed against the appellant under Sections 2, 2(d), 504, 482, 155, 154, 190, 200, 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 302, 203 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

This application was been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order which was passed by C.J.M., Bareilly. Under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate was directed to register the application as a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

The applicant applied Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that Bhairav Prasad was murdered by his son Pramod at night in the village. He was sleeping in his house. According to the applicant he did this to get the service in place of his father and to get the gratuity and fund amount. He also said that at the time of the alleged incident, villagers had collected at the place of occurrence and they heard the deceased saying that his son had not done the good work and did not even want to see his face. 

He also alleged that his son was in collusion with others who had filed F.I.R. against him and his brother-in-law and in that matter case was registered under Sections 302, 504 IPC. This application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed after more than one and a half years of the alleged incident. After considering the application held that the applicant had exaggerated the facts and instead of directing for registration of the F.I.R. directed that the case has to be registered as a complaint case. 

ISSUES

• Whether Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended if the application is filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.?
• Whether a case has been filed and declared a cognizable offense?
• Is it the Magistrate’s legal duty to direct for registration of the F.I.R.?

ARGUMENTS 

Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that if the application is filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the magistrate is bound to direct registration of the case & the Magistrate was directed for registration of the case as a complaint case. 

In support of all these arguments, learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the cases of Lal Chandra Nishad v. State of U.P., Om Singh v. State of U.P., and Phool Singh v. State of U.P. In these cases, the Honourable Judge of this Court has held that if an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that it is a legal duty of the Magistrate to direct for registration of the F.I.R. for the case. 

Learned Magistrate after considering the application held that the applicant had exaggerated the facts and instead of directing for registration of the F.I.R. directed that the case can be registered as a complaint case. He also placed the full bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P.

JUDGEMENT

The person is aggrieved and he sets out the motion of the machinery for prosecuting the wrongdoers, so that he may file a report at the police station. If the report has not been written by the officer at the police station then he got again an option to file a complaint in the Court under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which discloses cognizable offense the Magistrate is not required to direct for registration of the case. 

An application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be presented with legal assistance with some allegations that disclose a cognizable offense that is bound to be there. But just on this ground, the Magistrate cannot direct the police to register the case but the Magistrate needs to consider that there any kind of investigation is being required by the police under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate got his powers from the Section 190 Cr.P.C. where he may order such an investigation to be done or start.

The Magistrate is expected to exercise his judicial discretion in all the cases where police investigation may not be required even where the allegations may be disclosed as a cognizable offense as there may be nothing to be investigated by the police. According to the complainant filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the co-accused and other witnesses gave affidavits to the police officers and his father gave an application to the S.P. and other higher authorities but not a single action. In such a situation the complainant adopted to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

When the information is laid down with the police but no action has been taken, then the complainant can lay the complaint before the Magistrate under Section 190 r/w Section 200 of the Code. The Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint and recording evidence must find a prima facie case, instead of issuing a process to the accused, he must be empowered to direct the police to investigate the offense and to submit a report as soon as possible. 

If a complaint has not been disclosed any kind of offense to take further action, he was empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In this case, he found out that the complaint or evidence needs to be recorded as prima facie for disclosing an offense, and he was empowered to take cognizance of that offense immediately.

It was held that whenever a cognizable offense is disclosed the police officers are bound to register the same and if it is not done, then the directions to register the same can be given by the Magistrate. But the ruling has been distinguished and explained and it has been held that “the correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offense has been made out.

In case the police officials fail to do then the modalities to be adopted are as set out under Section 190 r/w Section 200 of the Code. Therefore, the Magistrate cannot be held to be bound to direct for registration of a case on every application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Otherwise it would result in harassment of innocent persons and become a tool for shrewd litigants.

The learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality in directing that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. be treated as a complaint case. The cases which were cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant do not lay down the correct law given the above-noted judgments by the Hon’ble Apex Court which did not help the applicant. 

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123246/

WRITTEN BY ABHIPRA AGARWAL AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.

Admin