- (1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 12.01.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in Criminal Misc. Case No. 133/2005, Abhay Kumar Dubey Vs. Netram & others by which application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was registered as complaint case.
(2.) Present revisionist had moved an application dated 09-12-2005 in Court below u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. After hearing the counsel for applicant/revisionist the Court below had passed its impugned order 12-01-2006 by which application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C of applicant was registered as complaint case. Aggrieved by this order present revision had been preferred.
(3.) None appeared on behalf of revisionist. Heard learned AGA and perused memo of revision. Code of Criminal Procedure had given different type of powers to deal with such matters relating to commission of cognizable offences when brought before it. Code and various case laws had set guidelines for Courts to deals with such matters. In ruling ; Ram Babu Gupta vs. State of U.P. & others,2001 2 CCrJ 644 full bench of this Court held that: "On receiving of such complaint, different courses are open to the Magistrate he may with the aid of power conferred by Section 156 (3) direct the police to register a case and investigate in the matter as provided in Chapter XII or he may treat the same as complaint and proceed in the manner as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. While resorting to the first mode in as much as directing the police for investigation he should not pass order in a routine manner. He should apply his judicial mind and on glimpse of the complaint, if he is prima facie of the view that the allegations made therein constituted commission of a cognizable offence requiring thorough investigation, he may direct the police to perform their statutory duties as envisaged in law. " - - - - - - - - "Where the Magistrate receives a complaint or an application which otherwise fulfills the requirement of a complaint envisaged by section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. and the facts alleged therein disclose commission of an offence, he is not always bound to take cognizance. This is clear from the use of the words "may take cognizance" which in the context in which they occur in section 190 of the Code cannot be equated with 'must take cognizance '. The word 'may' gives discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. Two courses are open to him. He may either take cognizance under section 190 or may forward the complaint to police under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. for investigation.";