^:'l;i-Ba, •s.. ^) w ,<'^ f ''•Sf"'w^^ |?r H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WritPetition(Cr.l No.4850 of2008 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Sunherlal Rangari, aged about 60 years, S/o Shri Mohanlal, R/o village Banderkata, Thana Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon . Versus : 1. The State of Chh^ttisgarh, through Seeretary, Ministry of Home Department D.K.S; Bhawan, Raipur 2. Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon 3. Station House Officer Police Station Chowky Distt. Rajnandgaon 4. Gyanender Singh Borker agedabout 38 years, S/o Narayan Borker, R/o village Mahud Machandure, Thana Chowky, Distt. Rajnandgaon 5. Ratan Lal agedabout 45 years, S/o Kejuramram Manker by Panderwani, Tahsil Chowky, Distt. Rajnandgaon 6. S.A.R. Bairagi (Investigator)," Sub Djvisional Officer, Police, Ambagarh Chowky, Distt. Rajnandgaon 7. Dr. R.R. Dhuruw Medical Qfficer, C.H.C., Ambagarh Chowky, Distt. Rajnandgaon {Writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: ' Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advoeate for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, counsel for respondent No.6. None present for respondents No.4& 5. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble IVIr.-T.P. Sharma.J ORALORDER (29-7-2010) 1. I have heard learned coynsel for the parties, perused the petition andthe material available on record. . 2. Learned counsel for the petitionervehemently argued that son of the petitioner has been murdered, but the police has not registered F.I.R. on which the petitioner filed complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate F t- •V'^i^.-^-^ f€'^^ '^ ~r^~^'' "•^-..-1T --.^ -•-.•;-^^S FirstClass, Ambagarh Chowkiandalsofiled petitioh under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for issuanceof direction to the poliGe, however, the Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the petition and has proceeded for enquiry interms of Chapter XVof the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits tftat as held by the Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumari v.State (NCT of Delhi) andothers reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677, police is bound to registerF.I.R. and investigate the matter. Leamed counsel further submits thatconsidering the norrcompliance ofstatutory provisions by the police authority relstingto registration of F.I.R. in cogriizable cases, the Apex Court has taken up the matter in the case of Lalita Kumari v.GovernmentofUttarPradeshand othersTeported in (2008) 7 SCC 164 and has issued notices to the respondents and direcfed to file response. Learned counsel also submits that on the basis of aforesaid legal proposition, police is under obligation to register F.1.R. and the Magistrate was under obligation to direct the police to take cognizance in terms of Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.G., but instead of issuing such direction, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the petition vide order dated 7-12-2007 which has been challenged beforethe revisional Court i.e. Sessions Judge,Rajnandgaon in Criminal Revision No.6/2008 however, same has been dismissed vide order dated 7-7-2008. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel & learned counsel for respondent No.6 opposed the petition and submitted that the Judicial Magistrate First Class has proceeded for taking cognizarice, under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the Magjstrate was not competent to issue direction in terms ofSection156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, learned Judicial IVIagistrate First Class hasdirected the police for investigation in accordance with sub-section (1) ofSection 202 ofthe Cr.P.C. though the Courtwas not competentto direct the police in case of complaint relating to offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 4.0rderdated 7-12-2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Cfass, Ambagarh Chowki.clearly reveals that the Judicial Magistrate has proceeded for enquiry in accordance with Chapter XVof the Cr.P.C. After proceeding for enquiry under Chapter XV of fhe Cr.P.C. the Magistrate was not competent to issue any direction in terms of Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate has directed the cy KSIKiSai F^, j 11:2 s m" diw •p <u "? <u §1 O)s~ <1> II) 01os ><c (O •o <u tL S <u 10s «i .fr 3, o-c' <u (U Q: 5-^— <^ u; ^ -5 "s c & S) S a. 3w .&• i i5 ^ o .- 3 .* v co c 'ra (d 0)i (0 O -5 o ^9 .(Oo 10 •3 J:^ "0- tO O IB I EJi TO g^'.^' 9 ro i 1 i-Q:. <u J5 •p 3 ^ —g <u Mw 2 t o 6c •o <um ,wt .<s •o' **«* . . . • .c •" ^ § (O 01 .c1 <" <u (0w (1)C t ff o <u J= S i o a>^ .0 !£ 8 •p 'a: Q 1 0)£ •p 0) croc <5 :ld1 8 •o 3 sf oo 0) •o c (O IB a> K>g S s s w a> <0s a> m "p (O 0) f: Q fe <o •*=•»?= ^- it <B s § S.rtl '5 "5 -§ 1 ^ s s 13 s w Q. E o <gs. .0. 1''3' 1 <uc s Q- 'B '(5 i j= •p c °- w s c (C ;cs Q. & t ? i it (0c' .0 '•G <u 10 m ^: <us •a cro m '-s o> S W Q. a) J=, •>> &• (B •o :c <*=. a> " „ *- cn .y oc -g a>i co Q :1: !0 g» •o 0 8 (3 0) t o 0) 1;3 •o o 10 i ^w8 (0 (O ^ ra , s ^^1° .3 CL| ^ ^' t. W^^