Archana vs Bijender
2021 Latest Caselaw 4256 P&H

CRM-M-51353-2021                                                          -1-

120
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH


                                  CRM-M-51353-2021
                                  Date of Decision: December 09, 2021

Archana
                                                            .....Petitioner
                     Versus

Bijender
                                                            ......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:      Ms.Alisha Soni, Advocate
              for the petitioner.
                     ........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition

praying for quashing of impugned order dated 11.02.2021 passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which revision petition of the petitioner was

dismissed and the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by learned JMIC, Hisar

was upheld.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complainant filed

a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR,

however, learned JMIC did not appreciate the same in accordance with the

spirit of the law and instead of directing the police to investigate and register

the FIR on the same, decided to take the preliminary evidence of the

complainant, which was totally against the spirit of the law. Thus, he

illegally declined to entertain the complaint vide his order dated 03.02.2020.

She further argued that the petitioner impugned the same by way of filing a

revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar. She submits that

1 of 3

even the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the facts and law settled

and hence illegally dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated

11.02.2021.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

It is apparent that the petitioner had earlier got registered FIR

No.499, dated 29.09.2019 under Sections 376(2)(c) and 506 IPC against the

respondent and after investigation, the same was cancelled. Thereafter, on

the similar allegations, the petitioner again filed the present complaint

against the respondent under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 376 and 506

IPC. The allegations levelled in the complaint were already investigated by

the police and were found to be false and because of this FIR No.499 was

cancelled. The precise argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the Court was bound to send his complaint to the police for

registration of the FIR, however, by catena of judgments, it is settled that the

Magistrate is not bound to send complaint to the Investigating Agency in a

mechanical manner. The provisions of Section 190 read with Section 200

Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to take congnizance of the complaint filed

before it. In the present case where the earlier FIR lodged by the petitioner

was duly investigated and cancelled, in my considered opinion, the

Magistrate did not commit any illegality in proceeding for taking cognizance

and asking the complainant to lead the preliminary evidence. Similarly, the

learned Sessions Judge has duly appreciated the contentions raised by

learned counsel for the petitioner and the law settled and thereafter declined

to interfere in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate.

Resultantly, I find no illegality in the conclusion drawn by both

2 of 3

the Courts below and thus, the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby

dismissed.

December 09, 2021                              ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss                                               JUDGE
1.   Whether speaking/reasoned ?                            Yes/No
2.   Whether reportable ?                                   Yes/No




                                3 of 3