NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Vimal Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th of June, 2008, passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Balrampur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 96/08 on the application moved under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby a direction has been issued to register and investigate the case under the appropriate sections. The petitioner has challenged the said order through the revision, which has also been rejected and the same has been challenged before this Court.
(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate raised an objection against the maintainability of the writ petition in the light of the several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely, Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another 2006 (54) ACC 530 (SC) = 2006 (38) AIC 70 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Judicial Magistrate before taking cogni­zance of the offence, can order investiga­tion under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. But if he does so, he is not to examine the complain­ant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start in­vestigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all regis­tration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cogniza­ble offence in a book kept by the officer-in-charge of the police station. Even if a Mag­istrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that an FIR should be regis­tered.;