- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 17-5-2007 passed by C. J. M. Gautam Budh Nagar on the Misc. Application No. 69 of 2007 filed by the applicant under Section 156 (3), Crpc for getting his F. I. R. registered at the police station, which prayer has been refused by the C. J. M. , Gautam Budh Nagar by passing the impugned order.
(2.) THE application of the applicant under Section 156 (3), Crpc was filed with the allegation that S. I. Anil Kumar, S. I. Chandra Pal Singh, Head Constable Khurshid, constable Satendra Singh and constable Kunwar Pal Singh of police station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar wrongly confined Rakesh Kumar and Sanjay on 20- 4-2007 at 8. 30 p. m. After detaining them for two hours at the police station, they were left freed from lock up and, therefore, the applicant alongwith four others was falsely implicated in a case and Rs. 50,000/- belonging to the applicant were taken up by the aforesaid police personnels. Since the F. I. R. of the applicant was not registered, he filed an application under Section 156 (3), Crpc. THE said prayer of the applicant was rejected by C. J. M. Gautam Budh Nagar by passing the impugned order dated 17-5-2007. THE said order of refusal is under challenge in this application. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA. C. J. M. Gautam Budh Nagar was approached at a pre-cognizance stage under Chapter XII Cr. P. C. seeking a direction to the police for registration of F. I. R. C. J. M. , Gautam Budh Nagar rejected the said prayer on the ground that it seems that the applicant was arrested in some other case was sent to jail. He also observed that the source of Rs. 50,000, which was alleged to have been taken away by the police personnel is not known. He also observed that what abusive words were hurled is also not mentioned in the application. He also mentioned that there was no medical report filed alongwith the application. By observing these facts, C. J. M. has rejected the prayer with the final observation that no cognizable offence is disclosed.
(3.) THE aforesaid observations made by C. J. M. is pre-judging the issue without getting it verified or investigated. C. J. M. , Gautam Budh Nagar was only to look into the application and decide the prayer. THE application of the applicant disclosed commission of cognizable offence of wrongful confinement and looting of money Rs. 50,000 by the male factors police personnels. Discloser of source of Rs. 50,000 by the applicant in the application under Section 156 (3), Crpc was not at all warranted nor on the said basis, the offence of loot could have been refused to be got registered. THE abusive words was also not required to be mentioned in the application under Section 156 (3), Crpc. Further the allegation was that a single blow by a danda was given by the police personnels to Rakesh Kumar. It is not essential that the injured should have got himself medically examined. THE fact remains is that the application did disclose commission of cognizable offence and since the Apex Court has held in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, that if the cognizable offence is disclosed, the police must registered the F. I. R. as it is its statutory duty the C. J. M. is directed the police to follow mandate of law. In the present case, the statutory duty was not observed by the police and, therefore, the Magistrate was duty bound to direct the police to follow the mandate of law as has been held by the Apex Court. By not doing so the Chief Judicial Magistrate not only committed the manifest error of law but he did most glaring injustice to the applicant by pre-judging the allegation of the applicant as false. THE reasoning given by the Magistrate is wholly illegal unwarranted and against the material on record. It seems that because the police personals were involved in the case, therefore, the C. J. M. Gautam Budh Nagar was trying to shield them. This conduct from the C. J. M. was not expected. I do not want to say much on the observation made by C. J. M. , Gautam Budh Nagar. Since C. J. M. , Gautam Budh Nagar was approached at a pre-cognizance stage, he was to look into the application of the applicant on the face of it and decide it in accordance with law within the purview of rights confer on him under the aforesaid Section as has been spelt out by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Through S. P. Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (1) JIC 931 (SC) : 2001 SCC (Cr.) 524. In this case it may be reminded that the matter has been exhaustively dealt with by this Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6152 of 2006, Smt. Masuman v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2007 (1) ALJ 221, which judgment was even got circulated. Inspite of the law laid down by the Apex Court and various judgments which have been referred in the aforesaid judgment Smt. Masuman (supra) C. J. M. , Gautam Budh Nagar has refused to get the F. I. R. by the applicant registered which disclosed commission of cognizable offence of wrongful confinement and of loot of Rs. 50,000/- of the applicant by the police.;