- (1.) THIS petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of order dated 15th of July, 2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in case No.676 -12 -14 filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was subjected to rape by respondent nos.4 to 6. A complaint was made to the police, however, under influence of the respondents, F.I.R. was not registered. An application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made, on which however directions have not been given to the police to register an F.I.R.
(3.) IT has been pleaded that it was mandatory for the magistrate to have issued directions for registration of the F.I.R. and investigation, because the application made by the petitioner discloses commission of cognizable offence. For the said purpose, learned counsel has relied on two page extract of judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.68 OF 2008 titled 'Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and others' decided on 12th of November, 2013. Shri R.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent -State, while assisting the Court, has contended that the magistrate is required to exercise jurisdiction judicially to see whether an application made under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be referred to the investigating agency for investigation, after registration of F.I.R., or be treated as a complaint or the same needs to be dismissed as it does not disclose commission of any offence. For the said purpose, Shri R.K. Dwivedi, learned State Counsel, has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mona Panwar Vs. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad through its Registrar and others, 2011 3 SCC 496.;