- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Brijesh v. State Of U.P.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from an application to quash an order dated 6.12.1996 passed by the Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 123 of 1996 under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 I.P.C. The Magistrate directed the Station Officer of the concerned Police Station to register and investigate a case. The deceased, Smt. Asha Devi, wife of the applicant, died on 21.11.1996 due to illness. Her mother, Smt. Malti Devi, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. on 2.12.1996 seeking a direction for police registration and investigation. The applicant contended that the death was natural and no prima facie case was made out, challenging the Magistrate's jurisdiction and alleging denial of opportunity to be heard before the impugned order was passed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to direct police to register and investigate a case without proof that police failed to register the case despite best efforts.
- Whether the Magistrate is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the alleged offender before directing police to register and investigate a case.
- Whether the order directing police to register and investigate the case can be quashed under inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The deceased died of natural causes, and thus no prima facie case under the cited sections of the I.P.C. was made out against the applicant.
- The Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to direct police registration and investigation without evidence that police had failed to register the case despite best efforts, relying on the precedent of Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P.
- The applicant was denied an opportunity of hearing before the Magistrate passed the impugned order.
Court's Response to Arguments
- The power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is not conditional on a showing that police failed to register the case despite best efforts.
- The cited precedent was distinguished on facts, as it related to bail orders and not the Magistrate’s power to direct investigation.
- The Magistrate is not legally required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the alleged offender before directing police registration and investigation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P., 1995 32 ACC 579 | Requirement that Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. be exercised only if police fail to register case despite best efforts | Distinguished as the case involved bail order considerations and not the issue of Magistrate’s power to direct investigation; found not applicable to present facts. |
| Surajmal v. State of U.P., 1993 30 ACC 81 | Magistrate’s full competence to direct police to register and investigate a case under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. | Followed as authoritative support for the Magistrate’s power to direct police registration and investigation without conditions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the scope of Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., emphasizing that the legislature intended to empower Magistrates to direct police registration and investigation of cognizable offences without imposing preconditions such as proof of police inaction. The Court rejected the applicant’s reliance on Mahendra Kumar, distinguishing it on factual and procedural grounds. It cited the Division Bench ruling in Surajmal v. State of U.P. to affirm the Magistrate’s authority. Regarding the procedural contention, the Court held that no legal provision requires the Magistrate to hear the alleged offender before issuing such a direction, and thus no illegality was committed in ignoring the applicant’s objection. Consequently, the Court found no ground to quash the Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C.
Holding and Implications
The application to quash the Magistrate’s order directing police to register and investigate the case is rejected.
The direct effect of this decision is the validation of the Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. allowing police investigation to proceed. The Court did not establish any new precedent but reaffirmed existing legal principles regarding the Magistrate’s authority and procedural requirements in such cases.
Kundan Singh, J.:— This is an application for quashing the order dated 6.12.1996 passed by the Magistrate concerned in Misc. Case No. 123 of 1996 under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 I.P.C, P.S Tarwa District Azamgarh whereby the Magistrate issued a direction to the Station Officer of the Police station concerned to register and investigate the case.
2. It is asserted that Smt. Asha Devi wife of the applicant died on 21.11.1996 in the hospital due to her illness. Smt. Malti Devi, mother of the deceased, moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C before the Magistrate concerned on 2.12.1996 praying for a direction to the police to register and investigate the case. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the deceased died of her natural death; hence no prima facie case was made out against the applicant for the offences as stated above. As such the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to direct the police to accept the F.I.R and conduct investigation in the case. The applicant filed his objection in the case but the Magistrate ignored to consider his objection and denied an opportunity of hearing at the time of passing of the impugned order.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the power of the Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) Cr. P.C cannot be exercised unless it is shown that the police has not registered the case inspite of best efforts. He relied on the case of Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P . 1995 32 ACC 579.
4. I have given my anxious throught to the submission made on behalf of the applicant. The submission that the Magistrate was not empowered to issue a direction to the police to register and investigate the case unless it is shown by the complainant that the police has not registered the case inspite of the best efforts is not sustainable inasmuch as the legislature has not left the victims of cognizable offences for investigation of such offences at the mercy or sweet-will of the police but the statute empowers the Magistrate to command the Station Officer to register and investigate any cognizable offence under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C and the case cited by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the, present case as the bail order in the above case was passed considering this ground and releasing the accused on bail but in the present case the authenticity of the order has been challenged in inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C The Division Bench of this Court has laid down a rule of law in the case of Surajmal v. State of U.P . 1993 30 ACC 81., that the Magistrate is fully competent to direct the police to register and investigate the case. Further no provision of law imposes any condition or restriction on the exercise of the power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C
5. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order is concerned, the Magistrate is not required under any provision of law to afford an opportunity, of hearing to a proposed or alleged offender before the cognizance of the offence is taken or the case is registered, as such he has committed no illegality in ignoring the objection raised by the applicant before he passed the order directing the police to register the case against the applicant.
6. In the facts and circumstances stated above, I find no ground to quash the order of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr. F.C directing the police to register and investigate the case.
7. Accordingly the application is rejected.
Application Rejected.
Alert