Ravindra Singh - (1.) -Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G A and Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh and Sri R. P. Srivastava learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 7.8.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 250 of 2003, whereby the revision filed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 was allowed and the order dated 7.4.2003, passed by the learned 1st A.C.J.M., Basti in Criminal Misc. Case No. 127/12 of 2003 directing the police station concerned to register the case and investigate the same in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. was set aside. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application dated 7.4.2003 under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. in the Court of learned 1st A.C.J.M., Basti, with a prayer to direct the Station Officer of the police station Dudhara district Sant Kabir Nagar to register the case and investigate the same. On the basis of the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. the prima facie cognizable offence is made out, so the learned 1st A.C.J.M., Basti, allowed the application filed by the petitioner and directed the Police Station, Dudhara to register the case and investigate the same, but it was also directed that the accused shall not be arrested without permission of the Court during the pendency of the investigation. The abovementioned order dated 7.4.2003 is a perfect order, but it was challenged by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 by way of filling the Criminal Revision No 250 of 2003. The same was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Basti, on 7.8.2003. It is an illegal order because the learned Sessions Judge, Basti, has tried to scrutinize the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. for which he is not legally permitted, and he has not recorded any findings that on the basis of the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. prima facie no cognizable offence is made out but the order passed by the Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Court of the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in the light of the observation given in the judgment. It is further contended that in pursuance of the order dated 7.4.2003 the F.I.R. was registered on 11.5.2003 in Case Crime No. 12 of 2003, under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3 (i) (x) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act and after its investigation the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 9.6.2003. In such circumstances, it was not proper for the revisional court to set aside the order dated 7.4.2003, passed by the 1st A.C.J.M., Basti and to remand the matter to the Court of the 1st A.C.J.M., Basti, to pass a fresh order under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. so the order dated 7.8.2003 is illegal, which is liable to be set aside. This contention is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 by submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 7.4.2003 because the learned Magistrate has passed the order dated 7.4.2003 without calling the police report from the police station concerned and the allegations are false and frivolous even the parentage and the correct address of the respondent No. 2 Karam Hussain alias Lal was not mentioned and the learned Magistrate passed the order without verifying the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. from the police station concerned, so the order dated 7.4.2003 was illegal. It was rightly set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, Basti and there was no illegality in remanding the matter to the Court of the learned 1st A.C.J.M., Basti, to pass a fresh order in the light of the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, Basti.
(3.) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 4, from the perusal of the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein the prima facie cognizable offence is made out. If the parentage and complete address of the accused is not mentioned, it does not affect the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. because it is part of the investigation. IN the present case, in pursuance of the order dated 7.4.2003 the F.I.R. was registered on 11.5.2003 in Case Crime No. 12 of 2003, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (i) (x) S.C./S.T. (PA.) Act at Police Station, Dudhara and after completing the investigation the charge-sheet was also submitted on 9.6.2003 by the INvestigating Officer against the respondents No. 2 to 4 for the aforesaid offences. But this fact was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge, Basti, because in pursuance of the order dated 7.4.2003, passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. the F.I.R. was registered and after completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was also submitted, so it was not proper for the revisional court to enter into the merits of case and to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. According to the provisions of Section 154 of Cr. P.C. every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a Police Station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction. IN this provision the word 'shall' is used which indicates that more emphasis is given for reducing to writing so the officer-in-charge of a Police Station is under obligation to register the F.I.R. of a cognizable offence, to check arbitrariness of the officer-in-charge, the provision of Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. are embodied in Cr. P.C. If any F.I.R. is registered at a police station in pursuance of the order passed under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. and that order was set aside by the other Court, it will not affect the F.I.R. and its investigation. IN such circumstances, it was also not proper for the learned Sessions Judge, Basti, to set aside the order dated 7.4.2003 and remit the matter to the learned 1st A.C.J.M., Basti with a direction to pass a fresh order in the light of the observation given by the learned Sessions Judge, Basti. The order to remit the matter to the Ist A.C.J.M., Basti, to pass a fresh order is abuse of process of law, because the F.I.R. was already registered at the police station concerned on 11.5.2003 and after completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was also submitted on 9.6.2003, before passing the order dated 7.8.2003 in Criminal Revision No. 250 of 2003, therefore, it is illegal and is set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.;