SlngleBilich £?INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CR.M.P.NO. 4 °3 OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS p.R. HU.....-^-;-^ fw^^^T^ o^i......-^-^-^ Amit Rateriya, S/o Sanjay Rateriya, aged about 29 years, R/o Subhash Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS Ghurau Ram Chouhan, S/o Bhoklo Ram Chouhan, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Dongitarai, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) Ratthuram Chouhan, S/o Ghuturam Chouhan, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Kishanpur, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) Kishan Agrawal, S/o Madangopal Agrawal, R/o Dhagardeepa, Tahsi! and District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2. .^-': PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 eya^^ x:^. kv\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sjnale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. A PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Cr.M.P. No.409/2011 Amit Rateriya Versus Ghurau Ram Chauhan and others PETtTION UNDER SECTiON 482 OF THE CODE OF CRiMINAL PROCEDURE Present: - Shri P.P. Sahu, counsei for the petiljoner. Ms. Sunita jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.4 on advance copy. ORALORDER (Passed on 20m ofJuly, 2011) This petition has been fiied by me petitioner aggrieved by order dated 23/06/2011 passed by the Sessions judge, Raigarh in Criminai Revision No.28/11 by which the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a complaint filed against the petitioner, the Magistrate passed an order on 2/2/2011 (Annexure P/3) directing registration of case and submission of report by the poiice in purported exercise ofSection 156 (3) of CrPC, which was subjected to challenge bywayofrevision. 3. Though the Revisional Court having found a case for interference and granted interim order, later on, the revision petition has been dismissed only on the ground of non-compiiance of Court's order passed on 1/3/11, 15/4/11 and 25/05/11. Learned counsei for the petiUoner submits that non-payment of process fee by the petitioner ought not to have resuited in dismissai of the '^ petition itself on merits and the Court below ought to have decided the matter, even without service of notice, by caliing records of the Court of Magistrate. Learned counsei for the petitioner further submitted that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate in purported exereise of powers underSection 156 (3) CrPC is in excess of jurisdiction and authority, in as much as the compiainant could not point out any case as alieged and therefore, there was no necessity for the Magistrate to cail for police report to register a case. Further submission of iearned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has challenged the registration of proceedings on a specific ground that though the Magistrate had initiaily ordered for calling report from the poiice, iater on, an order was prepared by the cierk with regard to registration of case on fhe basis of eompiaint and submission of report under Ssction 156 (3) CrPC. 4. On the other hand, learned State counset submits that present is a compiaint case and the orders passed by the Courts beiow are in accordance with law. 5. A perusal of order sheets dated 1/3/2011, 15/4/2011, 25/05/2011 and 23/06/2011 shows that initiaily an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was granted time to pay process fee for issuance of notice. However, on 15/4/2011, 25/5/2011 as also on 23/6/2011, the petitioner did not pay process fee. The learned Revisionai Court in its order dated 23/6^2011 has recorded that the case does not require any interference as the Magistrate has obtained report in exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) of CrPC and the case reiates to allegation of commission of cognizabie offence. The power of Magistrate under Section 156 (3) to cail for the records from the police cannot be chaiienged on the ground that while calting report, the Court '(••i '. &?-:".- .^- s^,^ could not have issued a direction of registration of case by the police. in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.. 2008 AIR SCW 309, it has been held - °11. In this connection, we wouid tite 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), CrPC by an appiication in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisiiactory 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 Seciion 156 (3) CrPC before the iearned Magistrate concerned. if such an application under Section 156 (3)ts filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FiR to be registered and aiso can direct a proper investigation to be 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." 6. The other submission of iearned counsei for the petitioner that the order was initiaily passed by the Magistrate, but iater on, the cierk of the Court, of his own, has written the order sheet wiih regard to registration of case, is absolutely frivplous. The Magistrate has passed a judiciai order signed by him. it is not the case of the petitioner that the Magistrate did not sign the order. This kind of objections taken by the petitioner is whoily baseiess and it appears that the petitioner, jn order to prove his case, has gone to the extent or making such uncalled for and frivoious ailegations. On the complaint, a noting has been made by the Magistrate. However, proceedings before the Magistrate are judiciai proceedings and judiciai order passed by the Magistrate on 2/2/201 1 duly signed by him, it cannot be said that the contents of the order had been written by the cierk after the order was passed by the Magistrate. — ^ L- O.iipli 7. I have gone through the complaint. After going through the complaint, it appears that the compiainant has made aliegations witfi regard to the cognizabie offence. Therefore, in these circumstances, if the Magistrate exereises oowers under Section 156(3) CrPC to cali for the report from the potice, t do not flnd any iilegaiity or abuse of the process of law. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. MaM"d""^shri—