- (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2003 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case no. 212.2003 (Smt. Puneet Bala Vs. Virendra Singh and others), dismissing application of revisionist under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by this impugned order dated 28.07.2003 present revision had been preferred.
(2.) SECTION 156 CrPC reads as under: "156. Police officer's power to investigate the cognizable cases. (1) Any officer incharge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power enquire into or try under the provision of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above -mentioned."
(3.) PRESENT revisionist had moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.c., against her husband and his families for alleging harassing and cruelty due to demand of dowry at the residence of her husband. After hearing the applicant's side on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, Learned Magistrate had passed impugned order dated 28.07.2003 for registering the application as complaint, which order has been challenged in present revision. Police can investigate into matters relating to commission of 'cognizable offences' brought to its notice under section 154 CrPC. Officer -in -charge of police station has power to investigate U/S 156(1) in such case. Magistrate has power to take cognizance u/s 190 CrPC on receiving the 'complaint'. Thus the matter relating to section 156 (3) relates to power of Magistrate to order investigation by police in matters relating to cognizable offences brought before it through complaint. Complaint has been defined in section 2(d) CrPC of as follows : "''complaint' mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a Police report." 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. and others,2001 2 CCriJ 644 full bench of this Court held: "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.";