SUKHWASI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question, has been referred, for consideration;

(2.) BEFORE, proceeding to discuss the pros and cons of the issue, it would not be out of place to mention that this controversy would have not arisen, if provisions of Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. had been drafted in a more explicit manner. It could have been mentioned that the Magistrate in his discretion direct registration of the first information report or it could have been mentioned that he should direct registration of a first information report in an appropriate case. Frances bienniom couplet comes to mind;

(3.) HON'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Prasad in criminal Misc. Application No. 6152 of 2006 : (reported in 2007 (1) ALJ 221), Smt. Masuman v. State of U. P. and 19 others, connected applications, has held that when an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. discloses a Commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate has no option. Magistrate has not to apply his mind and has to act merely as a post office.