Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 738 (MP)

Buti Singh v. State of M. P.

2006-05-18

A.K.GOHIL

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC for seeking a direction from this Court against the respondents for submitting report under section 156 (3) of CrPC as directed by the CJM, Gwalior on 25.11.2004. Despite the various orders and lapse of more than one and half year report could not be filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even after direction of the CJM, police neither enquired into the matter nor submitted any report before the CJM and they are appearing and simply taking adjournments. Respondents are influential officers therefore the police is not enquiring and not submitting any report. He submits that his firm apprehension is that the police will not take any interest in the matter. 2. In fact, in such cases it is for the CJM to control the investigation and to give suitable direction to the police officer to submit report within a particular period. I think the Magistrate is not powerless and cannot sit idle. If the report is not submitted by the police officer even after direction given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he can prescribe time limit and compel the police to submit report. He can also control the investigation and can give suitable direction to the police officer for 'submitting the report as directed by him under section 156 (3) of CrPC. 3. In the case of Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan [2006 (1) Crimes 81 (SC)], the question arose before the Court whether the Judicial Magistrate before taking cognizance of offence can order investigation under section 156 (3) CrPC and can direct police to register the FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering Magistrate before taking cognizance of offence can order investigation under section 156 (3) and can direct police to register the FIR thereafter. In the case of Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam [ AIR 1961 SC 986 ], it was observed that if the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint filed before him he shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate. If the Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offence on the complaint filed before him, he was not obliged to examine the complainant on oath and the witnesses present at the time of the filing of the complaint. We cannot read the provisions of S. 190 to mean that once a complaint is filed, a Magistrate is bound to take cognizance if the facts stated in the complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence. A complaint disclosing cognizable offences may all justify a Magistrate in sending the complaint under S. 156 (3) to the police for investigation. There is no reason why the time of the Magistrate should be wasted when primarily the duty to investigate in cases involving cognizable offences is with the police. 4. It is true that in this exercise there is no provision under section 156 (3) that the Court can control and supervise. It is true that a Magistrate cannot put a stop to the investigation as the investigation into an offence is a statutory function of the police and the superintendence thereof is vested in the State Government and the Court is not required to interfere with the investigation and to quash it, but certainly the time limit can be prescribed and direction can be given to submit the report. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion this petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to submit the report as directed by the CJM on 25.11.2004 within a period of one months and thereafter the concerned Magistrate shall further take steps in the matter in accordance with law.