Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 476 ALL

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 476 ALL
Judgement Date : 24 March, 2011

Allahabad High Court

Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 24 March, 2011

Bench: Vinod Prasad




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1573 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Bahadur Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Sharma
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.

Heard Sri S.P. Sharma learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is pre-cognizance stage. Long back, Hon'ble Apex Court has dubbed power of Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as "reminder to the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation." Such being the nature of an order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., an application moved thereunder by no stretch of imagination, can be converted into State case.

Power vested in the Magistrate under that relation if stretch to the maximum limit, the outer periphery can be that Magistrate can treat an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case, adopt the procedure of the complaint case by recording evidences under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and then either proceed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and dismiss the complaint if no offence is made out on summon the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. whose complicity is disclosed in the inquiry conducted by it under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

There cannot be any deviation from such a prescribed procedure under Cr.P.C. Golden rule of judicial interpretation is that if thing is required to be done in a particular manner then either it should be done in that manner or not at all.

Another aspect of the matter is that Magistrate cannot invent a new procedure which is not prescribed under Cr.P.C. Legislation is an arena which is specifically reserved for legislators. Courts are empowered to make law but only by way of judicial precedence. In an appropriate case Courts can always fill gray area left by legislature while enacting a particular statute.

Such being a position, prayer of the revisionist seeking a direction to the Magistrate that he must treat application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as State case, is wholly unmerited and is rejected.

This revision being meritless, is dismissed.

Order Date :- 24.3.2011

rkg