The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order where the Magistrate treated a Section 156(3) application as a complaint case. The Court held that no illegality or infirmity justified interference.
The prayer to quash the impugned orders was refused; the application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18255 of 2019
Applicant :- Iftekhar Husain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Firdos Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.1.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 274 of 2018 and order dated 4.9.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in Misc. Case No. 449 of 2018 on the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, district Azamgarh.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was illegally and arbitrarily treated as comlplaint case. Criminal revision filed against the said order was also dismissed. It is further argued that there is necessity for investigation.
On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. As per the settled legal position, the Court / Magistrate is not always bound to pass order for registering the case and investigation on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosing a cognizable offence. It may exercise its discretion judiciously and if it is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be appropriate to treat the application as a complaint case then the Magistrate may proceed with according to the procedure provided under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. It is also clarified that if report is necessary on any point, the learned Magistrate is competent enough to call for report from the police concerned on given points. Further, it is open to the applicant to raise the question before the court concerned at the appropriate stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.
The application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019
Sachdeva
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. deserves interference to allow investigation or registration of a complaint case.
Whether the Magistrate acted within discretion by treating the Section 156(3) application as a complaint case instead of directing investigation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Iftekhar Husain
State Of U.P.
Om Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
