- (1.) V. D. Chaturvedi, J. At the outset learned Counsel for the peti tioner requests for permission to delete the name of the opposite party No. 2 stating that opposite party No. 2 has no locus stand and he was erroneously made opposite party No. 2.
(2.) AGA has no objection. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the name of the opposite party No. 2 during the course of the day. The magistrate's order, whereby he treated the petitioner's petition under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. as complaint and whereby the magistrate declined to pass the order; of investigation, is under challenge. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. against accused Yameen stating that accused Yameen entered into the petitioner's house, with evil motive in the ab sence of her husband and outraged her modesty; that when she resisted, the accused Yameen had beaten her by a danda and had broken her tooth. He con tends that she was medically examined after her husband came back and the injury reports (page No. 8 and 9 of the affidavit) support the allegations of offence under Section 325, I PC. Yet the magistrate declined to pass the order for the investigation on the petition under Section 156 (3) moved by the lady petitioner on the ground that all the facts which could be investigated were already known to the petitioner.
(3.) THE criteria for ordering the investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. is not solely what the magistrate has stated. The word 'may' occurring in Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. is of utmost signifi cance. It gives the magistrate a discretionary power to order or not for an investi gation into the cognizable offence disclosed in the petition. This discretionary power ought to have been exercised only on reasons and not on arbitrariness. This discretionary power has been given to magistrates to enable them to deal adequately with both types of the petitions (i) the genuine petitions containing truthful allegations about the commission of the cognizable offence and (2) the petitions having baseless or false allegations. The increasing tendency of the people to file petitions on false allegations cannot be ignored. The petitions of later category are filed with the motive to unnecessarily harass the opponents, by taking the undue advantage of the provisions of Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C.;