Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1052 (ALL)

RAM ANUJ DUBEY v. STATE OF U P

2003-05-02

K.N.SINHA

body2003
K. N. SINHA, J. The present application has been filed against the order dated 19-4-2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi whereby he directed to register the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. as complaint. 2. The brief fact giving rise to this application is that an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. was moved by applicant for registration of the case and investigation. The CJM Bhadohi ordered for registering the case as a complaint case. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the procedure of complaint case and application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. is quite different and the CJM Bhadohi has without earning for this, passed the impugned order. In support of the contention he has relied upon two case law. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order the present application has been filed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned AGA and also perused the impugned order. 6. In the case of Mahboob Ali v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 2001 (1) JIC page 470, Alld. it has been held that the scope of application under Section 156 (3), Cr. PC. and that of complaint are different. The facts of the case referred to in the case of Mahboob Ali (supra) are similar to those of the present case. In that too the applicant had moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. which was ordered to be registered as a complaint. 7. In the above case the order of the Magistrate was set aside and he was directed to pass proper order. 8. In the case of Dinesh Chandra and others v. State of U. P. , 2001 (1) JIC page 942, Alld, it was held that the powers under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. are quite different to the power under Section 200, Cr. P. C. The case of Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3104 was fully discussed in the case of Dinesh Chandra and others, (supra) and it was held as follows: "the apex Court has definitely not used the term complaint to thwart or defeat the purpose behind the enactment of Section 156 (3) itself. The term was never used with any intention that the reference order appears to channelise. The term was never used with any intention that the reference order appears to channelise. Thus in my view it should be an application and not a complaint. " 9. Thus, the pronouncement of this Court in case of Dinesh Chandra and others (supra) clarified the position of complaint under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. I, therefore, find that the learned CJM Bhadohi exceeded the jurisdiction in registering the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. as complaint. The application is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 19-4-2003 so far as it relates to registration of application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. as a complaint case is quashed. The C. J. M. Bhadohi is directed to proceed and pass appropriate order on the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. at an early date. Application allowed. .