Skip to main content

Magistrate Cannot Convert CRPC 156 (FIR Demand) into CRPC 200(Trial) Complaint Case

 



Delhi District Court
Presently Residing At : vs Sh. Kaushal @ Bunty on 19 September, 2009
Author: Ms. Shailender Kaur




3. It was further contented that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the Judgment Parvez Parwaz Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009 Cri LJ 614 has held :

'While passing order for treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint, the following observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta (supra) must be kept in mind by Magistrate/Judges:
'However, it is always to be kept in mind that it is the primary duty of the police to investigate in cases involving cognizable offences and aggrieved person cannot be forced to proceed in the manner provided by Chapter XV and to produce his witness at his cost to bring home the charge to the accused. It is the duty of the state to provide safeguards to the life and property of a citizen. If any intrusion is made by an offender, it is for the State to set the law into motion and come to the aid of the person aggrieved.

Thus, the complaint moved U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC could not have been converted by the Learned MM U/s 200 Cr.PC.

5. It was thus contended that the complaint discloses prima facie cognizable offences involving serious allegations requiring specialized investigations by police, the evidence of which is beyond the reach of the complainant. Moreover, the case requires custodial interrogation for recovery of articles or discovery of facts. Thus in these circumstances FIR against the accused persons under the provisions of law is mandatorily required to be registered.


In the judgment Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & Ors. Vs. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors. (supra) Apex Court has clearly laid down the law in this regard stated as under:-

'If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from, being wasted in inquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.'


8. Thus, unlike SHO the magistrate as empowered in U/s 190 has a discretion U/s 156 (3)Cr.PC to order an investigation or to conduct an inquiry himself U/s 200 Cr.PC. In this case the Learned Magistrate has dismissed the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC but has proceeded to record pre-summoning evidence on the complaint of the petitioner U/s 200 Cr.PC holding by that evidence in this case is within the possession and reach of the parties. Thus, in view of the above, there is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Learned Magistrate. Moreover, in the judgment Gopal Krishan Dua Vs State CRL Rev. P. No. 571 of 2008 of CRL MA 1229/2008 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 25.03.09 it has been observed as follows :

''The learned MM had the discretion to either forward the complaint to the police for registering an FIR or decide to direct the complainant's evidence to be recorded. The decision of the learned MM to opt for the latter course cannot, in the facts of the present case, be held to be erroneous or illegal.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126596203/ 


Gauhati High Court

Sekh Abdullah And 2 Ors vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 5 March, 2020
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64780517/

The impugned complaint of the respondent No.2 filed on 12.04.2018 was under Chapter XII, Section 156(3) CrPC and the same was not a complaint under Chapter XV, Section 200 CrPC. As such once the JMFC, Rangia, Kamrup by the order dated 05.05.2018 passed in said CR No. 45/2018 has rejected the impugned complainant of the respondent No. 2 filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate cannot proceed with the same complaint under Section 200 CrPC. The Magistrate, after rejecting a complaint filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, does not possess any such Suo-Moto power under the provisions of the CrPC to convert the same complaint to be a complaint under Section 200 CrPC. At best the Magistrate could have return the said complaint of the respondent No.2 filed under Section 156(3) CrPC enabling her to file an appropriate complaint/ application under Section 200 CrPC.




Delhi District Court

Ms. Heenu Mahajan vs Narender Mahajan on 24 January, 2012

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26611143/

4. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for petitioner as well as of Ld. Addl. PP for the State. I have also perused the entire material placed before me including the Ms. Heenu Mahajan Vs. Narender Mahajan & Ors. (CR No.73/11) Page No.7 of pages 10 impugned order, contents of the petition specially the grounds taken therein and I find substance in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the observations of Ld. MM is erroneous. Although the accused are known to the petitioner but still there are various aspects which need investigation. The complaint depicts commission of the offence of theft by the accused persons. For the purpose of establishing the same, recovery of the stolen articles are must, which can be possible only through police investigation. Moreover, the petitioner is claiming ownership of the shop while the accused persons are also claiming ownership of the shop. In the circumstances, when both of them are claiming title on the basis of ownership documents, it means that one of them is not having the genuine documents. To find out as to whose documents are not genuine and to recover the same, police investigation is necessary. It is well settled that if complaint discloses cognizable offence, then it becomes the duty of police officials to register the case and then investigate the matter and if after investigation, the police find that no offence is made out, it can file the closure report. The basis, reliability, genuineness and credibility of the information disclosing the cognizable offence are not the conditions precedent for registering a case under Sec.154 Cr.P.C.




Allahabad High Court
Smt. Santosh Kumari Wife Of Late ... vs State Of U.P. on 1 June, 2007

Equivalent citations: 2007 CriLJ 3869

15. More over Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah had no power under the aforesaid section to convert an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. into a complaint against the, wishes of victim. Filing: of complaint is right which is vested in the victim or aggrieved person. The Magistrate has got no right to file a complaint. He has also got no right to start litigation on the basis of an application seeking direction from him to get the FIR of cognizable offence registered. If no complaint is filed before him no cognizance of the offence can be taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. An application with the prayer to get the FIR of cognizable offences registered and offences investigated is certainly not a complaint as is defined under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. The applicant never wanted the Magistrate to take action self but he wanted the Magistrate to take action of other kind and exercise administrative power under chapter XII Cr.P.C. and direct the police to register the FIR and investigate the offence. In the present case, aggrieved person has not filed the complaint before the Magistrate, for which different procedure is laid down under Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C. Under Section 90(1)(a) Cr.P.C., if complaint is filed, then the Magistrate can take cognizance. In the said section it is not provided that the Magistrate can convert suo motu an application for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint when no such payer is made by the aggrieved person informing his application as a complaint. More over the procedure of the complaint case as is mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure is such that the prosecution of the complaint case is the responsibility of the complainant It is his duty to bring the witnesses, and to lead evidence and bringing all the materials before the court. The statutory procedure prescribed for the complaint case is such that if the complainant is not present, then the complaint filed by him can even be dismissed in default and if the accused appeared then he be either discharged or acquitted as the case may be Thus it is responsibility of complainant to prosecute the complaint and the court cannot compel him to launch such a prosecution. Under the Cr.P.C. courts cannot compel any person to start the litigation. If the aggrieved person does not want to start litigation, the court cannot say that he must litigate.

Comments

  1. The guidelines exist but Magistrate do not follow .CONTEMPT TO above order

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bhopal Police Officers Inspectors Mobile Number and E mail ID

  OFFICERS LIST IGP TO TI POLICE OFFICERS CUG NUMBER LIST BHOPAL S.NO. POSTING RANK NAME P&T PBX CUG NO. E-MAIL 1 BHOPAL ADGP SHRI A SAI MANOHAR 2443599 407 9479990399 bhopalig@gmail.com 2 CITY/BPL DIG/CITY SHRI IRSHAD WALI 2443201 408 7049100401 dig_bhopal@mppolice.gov.in 3 DIG/ RANGE/ RURAL DIG/RURAL SHRI SANJAY TIWARI 2443499 305 7587628122 digbplrange09@gmail.com 4 BHOPAL SP (HQ) SHRI RAMJI  SHRIVASTAV 2443223 367 7049100405 sp_bhopal@mppolice.gov.in 5 BHOPAL SP (SOUTH) SHRI SAI KRISHNA THOTA 2443800 359 9479990500 spsouth_bhopal@gmail.com 6 BHOPAL SP (NORTH) SHRI VIJAY KUMAR KHATRI 2443320 377 9479990700 spnorth320@gmail.com 7 BHOPAL ASP (HQ) SMT RICHA COUBE 2677319 319 7587615141 asphqbpl@gmail.com 8 BHOPAL AIG SMT RASHMI MISHRA 2443804 9479990620 bhopalig@gmail.com 9 BHOPAL ASP(CYBER)CRIME VACANT 2920664 7587628201 asp.cybercrime-bpl@mppolice.gov.in 10 BHOPAL ASP(CRIME) SHRI GOPAL DHAKAD 2761651 947999060

Supreme Court VC Video Conferencing Link

  ALL DAYS THIS LINKS ARE WORKING....NO CHANGES Seen. PLZ DONT MISUSE IT Video conferencing link common for all days. S.NO. COURT NO. COURT LINKS 1. Court No. 1 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court01 2. Court No. 2 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court02 3. Court No. 3 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court03 4. Court No. 4 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court04 5. Court No. 5 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court05 6. Court No. 6 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court06 7. Court No. 7 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court07 8. Court No. 8 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court08 9. Court No. 9 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court09          9A Court no.10            https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court10 10. Court No. 11 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court11 11. Court No. 12 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court12 12. Court No. 13 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court13 13. Court No. 14 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court14

Nehru खानदान की सच्चाई , Basic Knowledge of Nehru Family!

  Truth Of Nehru Surname  मोतीलाल नेहरू की 5 पत्नियाँ थीं। (1) स्वरूप रानी (2) थुसु रहमान बाई (3) मंजुरी देवी (4) एक ईरानी महिला (5) एक कश्मीरी महिला नंबर 1- स्वरूप रानी और नंबर 3- मंजुरि देवी को लेकर कोई समस्या नहीं है। दूसरी पत्नी थुसू रहमान बाई के पहले पति मुबारक अली थे। मोतीलाल की नौकरी, मुबारक अली के पास थी। मुबारक की आकस्मिक मृत्यु के कारण मोतीलाल थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह कर लिये और परोक्ष रूप से पूरी संपत्ति के मालिक बन गये। थुसु रहमान बाई को मुबारक अली से 2 बच्चे पहले से ही मौजूद थे- (1) शाहिद हुसैन (2) जवाहरलाल, मोतीलाल द्वारा इन दोनों बच्चों शाहिद हुसैन और जवाहरलाल को थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से अपना बेटा कह दिया गया। प्रासंगिक उल्लेख:- जवाहरलाल की माँ थुसू रहमान बाई थी, लेकिन उनके पिता मुबारक अली ही थे। तदनुसार थुसू रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से मोतीलाल, जवाहरलाल नेहरू के पालक पिता थे। मोतीलाल की चौथी पत्नी एक ईरानी महिला थी, जिसे मुहम्मद अली जिन्ना नामक एक बेटा था मोतीलाल की 5 नंबर वाली पत्नी एक कश्मीरी महिला थी, यह मोतीलाल नेहरु की नौकरानी थी। इसको शेख अब्दुल

Maharashtra Health Directory Mobile and Email address DHO, Civil Surgeon , Directors

  Contacts Ministers Back Minister Name Contact No. Mail ID   Prof.Dr.Tanajirao Sawant Hon. Minister Public Health and Family Welfare     (O) min.familywelafre@gmail.com     (F) Minister of State Name Contact No. Shri.  Hon. State Minister, Public Health 22886025 (O) 22023992 (F) Officers Name Contact No. Mail ID Project Director, Maharashtra State Aids Control Society 24113097/5619/5791   (O) pd@mahasacs.org Shri Shivanand Taksale (I.A.S.) CEO, State Health Assurance Society 24999203/204/205 (O)   Mantralaya State Public Health Department,  Mantralaya, Mumbai Telephone - 22610018 Officers Name Department / Section Telephone No in the workshop Expanded Mobile No Email IDs Subject Shri.Sanjay Khandare (I.A.S) Principal Secretary-1. 22617388 22632166 22617999 (F)             204         PA 216  Anti 211   psec.pubhealth@maharashtra.gov.in      Shri. N.Nawin Sona Secretary-2 22719030 / 22719031   202 / 244 PA 250   psec2.pubhealth@maharashtra.gov.in   Shri. Shivdas Dhule  (PA Shri. Mohite

MP Police Directory DGP Mobile Number Sudhir Saxena

MADHYA PRADESH POLICE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY I D S N B R A N C H N A M E D E S I G N A I O N S T D  C O D E O F F I C E R E S I F A X 1 F A X 2 M O B I L E CUG E  M A I L A D D R E S S 1 1 D G P  O F F I C E S u r e n d r a  S i n h D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 0 2 4 4 3 3 3 6 2 4 4 3 5 0 1 94 25 01 45 35 70 49 10 00 01 dgp mp @m ppo lic e.g ov .in C-1 0, Swa mi Da ya na nd N ag ar Bh op al 2 2 M i l i n d  K a n s k e r A D G / P S O 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 2 6 2 4 4 3 5 2 8 8 9 8 9 9 9 7 2 7 7 7 0 4 9 1 0 0 5 1 0  p s o d g p m p @ m p p o l i c e . g o v . i n  D - 2 / 1 9 , C h a r  I m l i 3 3 P r a d e e p  B h a t i y a J D . ( P  R ) 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 5 2 4 9 1 1 7 2 9 4 2 5 1 7 1 1 1 3 H - 3 9 5 , S a i  A d h a r s h i l a  B a r k h e d a 4 4 D . P .  J u g a d e P S  T o  D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 2 9 8 2 6 0 3 6 5 9 3 7049100502 134-A SEC-Sarvadharm Colony, 5 5 N . K .  S h r i v a s t a v a P S  T o  D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 2 9 7 5 2 7 0 0 9 4 6 7049155426 G-40/9, S. T.T. Nagar. 6

Limitation Act Applicable In Contempt Petition For Condonation Of Delay

  NINE YEARS DELAY CONDONE BY COURT AS RESPONDENT STILL DOING CONTEMPT . Cites 18 docs - [ View All ] Section 20 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Article 215 in The Constitution Of India 1949 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 The Special Courts Act, 1979 Pallav Sheth vs Custodian & Ors on 10 August, 2001 Citedby 0 docs S.G.L. Degree College vs Sri Aditya Nath Das, Ias And ... on 24 October, 2018 Smt. Kusumbai W/O Harinarayan ... vs M/S Shreeji Builders And ... on 14 November, 2019 Yogesh Vyas vs Rajesh Tiwari on 31 July, 2019 Sunil Kumar vs Girish Pillai on 31 July, 2019 Pramod Pathak vs Heera Lal Samriya & Others on 13 December, 2021 Madras High Court M.Santhi vs Mr.Pradeed Yadav on 11 April, 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.04.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM CONTEMPT PETITION No.377 of 2018 M.Santhi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Mr.Pradeed Yadav, I.A.S, Secretary to Government, School Education (HSE-1)

तोता पालने पर जेल जाओगे , कैद में रखना crime, Parrot Caging

  Crime Under Section 49,51 Of  Wild Life Protection act  तोता पालना तो देश में कॉमन है, ऐसे में उसको पिंजड़े में रखना भी अपराध है? वाइल्डलाइफ एक्ट के मुताबिक,  तोते या किसी अन्य पक्षी को पिंजड़े में कैद करके रखना और उससे किसी भी तरह का लाभ लेने के लिए प्रशिक्षण देना कानूनन अपराध है । भारत में कानून इजाजत नहीं देता कि किसी भी पक्षी को कैद करके रखा जाए। आम तौर पर नागरिक तोतों को पालतू पक्षी मानते हैं लेकिन वन्यजीव अधिनियम 1972 की धारा-4 के तहत इसे या किसी भी अन्य पक्षी को पिंजरे में कैद रखना या पालना गैरकानूनी है। वन्य प्राणी संरक्षण अधिनियम 1972 के अंतर्गत तोता को पालना या पिंजरे में कैद करना दंडनीय अपराध है। यदि किसी व्यक्ति ने तोता पाल रखा हो या उसे पिंजरे में कैद रखा हो तो वन विभाग के नजदीकी कार्यालय में सुपुर्द कर दें। देश भर में तोतों की करीब एक दर्जन प्रजातियां मौजूद हैं और सभी संरक्षित हैं। नियमानुसार तोतों को पालने के लिए वन विभाग की अनुमति जरूरी होती है, लेकिन उन्हें पिंजरे में बंद करने वाले यह अनुमति नहीं लेते हैं। लोग शौकिया तौर पर पिंजरों में रंग-बिरंगे पक्षियों को घरों में

Mehandipur Balaji Trustee Mobile Number

  मेहंदीपुर बालाजी ट्रस्टी का मोबाइल नंबर Dausa: Mehandipur Balaji Black Magic Mobile Number | Mehandipur Balaji Psychological Treatment Phone No. Mehandipur Balaji Temple is famous for saving people from Black Magic and Tantrik Kriya. Lord Balaji lives with Bhairav ji and Pretraj Sarkar. People come here for their Solution of Problems and Manokamna. Any Person affected with bad Spirit will Start Rotating his/her Head. Balaji, Bhairavraj and Pretraj Sarkar can help from Black Magic and Evil Spirits. Mehandipur Balaji Savamani Mobile Number | Mehandipur Balaji Arji Phone No. - +91-9782320445 और +91-9351416114 if any Person want to Solve their Problems then they Should Hire or Contact Pujari (Pandit ji) for Puja Path. Hanuman Kavach is also grace of Mehandipur Balaji. Hanuman Kavach is made after various Pooja Path and Tantra Saadhana. Pujari Mobile Number for Black Magic / Bad Spirit and Tantrik Problems  Solutions in Mehandipur Balaji - +91-9929156094

जब भी police complaint करे तो General Diary Number demand करे.

  WITHOUT GENERAL DIARY NUMBER YOUR COMPLAINT HAVE NO VALUE AND IT MEANS THAT YOUR COMPLAINT IS NOT IN RECORD.... A general diary (GD) entry or a daily diary entry is made when any kind of complaint is lodged and the police enter the details in their records. Thereafter, if the police believe that there is some prima facie evidence of a cognizable offense being committed, it is registered as an FIR. As requested by complainant in the CRPC 156 (3) matter the inquiry report has not been called from vishnu nagar police station till date. The additional copy of complaint was submitted during filing .Complainant request to call report from Vishnu nagar police station with diary remark. The police has not entered my complaint in general diary till date ie last six month. In Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar (1997) 8 SCC 476, Supreme Court has held that FIR must be registered in the FIR Register which shall be a book consisting of 200 pages. It is true that the substance of the information is also