Nirmala Devi v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-1353 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:14.1.2016 Nirmala Devi .....Petitioner v.

State of Haryana .....Respondent ....

Present:

Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioner. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of impugned order dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, vide which the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been declined. It has also been prayed that trial Court be directed to send the case for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that in the present case, Nirmala Devicomplainant filed a complaint against Sandesh Kumar, Rukmani Devi and Nirmala Devi widow of Ajmer Singh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22.12.2015 held that he had gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, but in none of the judgments it

Cr. Misc. No.M-1353 of 2016 [2] was held that in all cases it was always mandatory for the Magistrate to send the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station for registration of the FIR. This finding of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad is correct, as per evidence and law and no illegality has been committed. It is always the discretion of the Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of the case whether to take cognizance itself or to send it under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station for registration of the case etc. The Lower Court held that a perusal of the present complaint shows that entire case of the complainant is relied upon documentary evidence, which can be produced by the complainant herself. Therefore, the complaint was fixed for recording of preliminary evidence.

No illegality has been committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order nor, in any way, the passing of the impugned order can be held as an abuse of the process of law or miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srinivas Gundluri v. M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn. & others, 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 887 and Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 335.

I have gone through the law laid down in these judgments, which having distinguished facts are not applicable in the present case. In these judgments no where it has been held that complaint made to the Illaqa Magistrate is to be sent to the Police Station and the Illaqa Magistrate cannot take cognizance.

Cr. Misc. No.M-1353 of 2016 [3] Therefore, from the above discussion, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

January 14, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*