CRM No. 35590 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. 35590 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.01.2010 Mohan Lal ........ petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khungar, Advocate for the petitioner (s) -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) The short prayer made in this petition is for issuing direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to decide the complaint/representation dated 25.11.2009 and to take appropriate action against respondent No. 4. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are that respondent No. 4 had made a complaint and on the basis of which, FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the aforesaid FIR was quashed by this Court vide order dated 05.11.2009. After the quashing of the said FIR, the petitioner filed a representation before respondent No. 2, i.e. Superintendent of Police to take CRM No. 35590 of 2009 2 action as the respondents had given a false information to the police and set the criminal proceedings in motion and wasted the precious time of the Court. Without going into the merits of the case, it would be necessary to take into consideration the provision of Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, which reads as under:- “156 (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.” The above provision shows that the Magistrate has the power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XII. Under Section 156 (3), the Magistrate is also empowered under Section 190 to order investigation and direct the registration of the FIR. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported as (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409, held as under:- “11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be CRM No. 35590 of 2009 3 made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. 15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. 16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna AIR 1980 SC 326.” In the present case, an application (Annexure P-2) before the Sr. Superintendent of Police was moved for taking action under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. Section 182 of Indian Penal Code is a non-cognizable offence. Section 155 Cr.P.C. deals with the investigation of the offences of non-cognizable. Section 155 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State CRM No. 35590 of 2009 4 Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer, the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” A perusal of the above shows that non-cognizable offence cannot be investigated into except with the order of the Magistrate. In view of the above and taking into account the facts of the present case, the petitioner has the remedy to approach the Magistrate for the same relief. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of alternative remedy in accordance with law. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge January 08, 2010 mohan