- (1.) HEARD Mr I. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and Sri B. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
(2.) PETITIONER moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate, District Chitrakoot under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of the Criminal Case against the opposite party no. 2 saying that the respondent no. 2 had secured employment on the post of Principal on the basis of forged and inapplicable documents disclosing wrong information. This application was heard and thereafter dismissed vide order dated 5.12.2013 passed by learned Incharge Judicial Magistrate, Mau, Chitrakoot. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
(3.) HON 'ble Apex Count in Aleeque Padamsee Vs Union of India and another,2007 6 AllCriC 171 has held that if any person is aggrieved by inaction of police official in registering the FIR the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. should be adopted and it has further held that writ petition in such cases should not be entertained. The relevant extract of the judgement are reproduced as under: - "When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay the complainant before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate, after recording evidence, finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and could issue process to the accused." Similarly in case of Minu Kumar and another Vs State of Bihar and others, 2006 4 SCC 359, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: - "When the information is laid with the Police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Reg.) through its President v. Union of India and others, 1996 11 SCC 582). It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained.";