- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. On an applica tion under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, passed the follow ing order: "inspector to register a case, investigate and report by 4-11-1996. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.
(2.) AT the time of admission of the peti tion, learned counsel for the petitioners was heard at length. After considering the cases cited by him and also two cases; one decided by a Division Bench of this Court and another by a learned Single Judge of this Court, there remains little scope for holding that the impugned order is invalid or illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1996 Cr. L. J. , 612 Ganesh Dass v. State of Kerala. In this case it was laid down that the Magistrate while passing order under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC. is not empowerd to direct the police to register first information report. This case was not considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Suraj Mai v. State of U. P. , 1993 ACC, 81 JIC but in that Division Bench case, the decision of learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1990 (1) Crimes, 600) was considered where also similar view was taken as in the case of Ganesh Dass (supra ). Since the Division Bench of this Court in Suraj Mai v. State of U. P. (supra) has clearly observed that a Magistrate is competent to issue direction for registra tion of a case under Section 156 (3), Cr. PC. and further respectful disagreement was ex pressed by the Division Bench of this Court from the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) and further because the said Division Bench pronouncement in Suraj Mal v. State of U. P. (supra) was fol lowed by another learned single Judge of this Court in Jagan Singh v. State of U. P. , 1996 JIC, 293, this Court cannot take a dif ferent view and differ from the Division Bench pronouncement of this Court.
(3.) I do not find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter requires reference to a Larger Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the case of D. L. Ready v. V N. Ready (1976 SCC (Crl.) 380), but in this case the Supreme Court has no where specifically laid down that a Magistrate has no power to direct registra tion of a case and investigation of the same. Consequently this case is of little help to the petitioners.;