Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging order dated 7.5.2014 (Annexure P22) whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was ordered to be treated as a private complaint.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Annexure P21) against respondents No. 2 and 3 under Sections 381, 403, 406, 408, 418, 420, 463/465, 468, 469, 506 and 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and Sections 65, 72, 72A, 76 of Information Technology Act, 2000 ('Act' for short). The matter was necessary to be investigated by the Police. Certain articles were liable to be confiscated under the Act. The Magistrate should have directed the Police to register the FIR instead of treating the petition filed by the petitioner as a complaint. Impugned order(Annexure P22) reads as under: - "Report of SHO received. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that the FIR has not been registered against the present accused, so police may be directed to register FIR against present accused. Heard. The contention of learned counsel for complainant is devoid of any merit in view of the law down in case titled as Chandrika Singh versus State of U.P., : 2007(4), ALJ, 157(ALL), by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in which it has been held that - Magistrate is not always bound to pass an order for registration of the case and investigation after receipt of the application U/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosing a cognizable offence. The Magistrate may use his discretion judiciously and if he is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case it will be proper to treat the application as a complaint case then he may proceed according to the procedure provided under Chapter XV of Cr P.C. From the perusal of file and allegations contained in the complaint, I seek no reason to send the complaint directly for registration of FIR and to investigate, when this court is equally competent to take cognizance of the offence as set out in complaint. So, the application stands declined. Complaint be registered. To come up on 13.05.2014 for recording the statements of complainant and witness if any."
(3.) A report was called from the concerned Magistrate and vide letter dated 24.5.2014, it was informed that due to inadvertence, it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the report of the Station House Office has been received, whereas, the report had not been received from the Station House Officer.;