PALOK BASU, J. - (1.) The arguments advanced by parties learned counsel on the import of the provisions contained in S. 156(3) read with other relevant provisions certainly touched great heights but luckily the timely ushering of a decision of theApex Court has perforce reduced the controversies raised to a manageable extent.
(2.) It so happened that a Division Bench (of two of us, P. Basu and Hon.'ble J. C. Gupta, J.) came across in the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India of Ram Babu Gupta and Pramod Kumar Gupta an order dated 5-6-2000 (Annexure-6) passed in exercise of powers under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. by the Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area, Mainpuri directing Station Officer to register a case and investigate. The prayer was that the said order be quashed and respondents-Police Station Alau, Mainpuri and the informant Ved Prakash Dubey be restrained from arresting the petitioners in case Crime No. 900 of 2000, under S. 395 registered there in pursuance of the impugned order.
(3.) Shri J. S. Audichya, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the application of Ved Prakash Dubey requested the Magistrate to exercise only his powers under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C., direct the police to register the F.I.R. and, investigate it. The argument proceeded that the Special Judge's order "S.O. Alau ko Nirdesh Diya jata hai ki mukaddamma darj kar vivechna karen" (Translation by Court : "The S.O. is directed to register the case and investigate.") does not indicate application of mind, there was no power with the Magistrate to direct the registration of the case; since there was no complaint within the meaning of S. 2 of Cr. P.C. the aforesaid order could not have been passed in exercise of the powers under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench in Suraj Mal (1993) 30 All Cri C 81.;