Savitri Devi And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6044 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-25873-2022
                                               Date of decision: 04.07.2022


Savitri Devi and another                                  ......Petitioners

                                   Versus

State of Haryana and another                              .....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL



Present:      Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioners.



HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to the orders

passed by the Courts below, where while allowing an application

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.2-

complainant (Kanta Malik), directions for registration of an FIR,

were issued to the police.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

argues that while passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,

the learned Magistrate must apply his judicious mind and take

into consideration the consequences arising out of such order.

It is further argued that such an order must not be passed in a

mechanical way as such a process would result into a manifest

injustice to the person affected. Reliance is placed upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Kankra Vs. State

of U.P. & another, 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 757. He has also

commended me to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and

1 of 5

CRM-M-25873-2022 (2)

others, 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 1034, to argue that before

passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is

required to verify the veracity of the allegations contained in the

application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that such

process has not been adopted in the present case.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

after going through the orders passed by the Courts below, this

Court finds the present petition bereft of any merit.

In the instant case, the learned Magistrate before

passing the impugned order, had sent for the status report and

after having received such report, directions for registration of

an FIR were issued to the police. The learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Gurugram, vide order dated 13.05.2022, while

dismissing the revision petition against the order dated

4.3.2022, has observed that the fraud alleged against, needs to

be thoroughly investigated as the husband of respondent No.2-

complainant, who had been impersonated, had already died and

he had been in USA and under treatment, at the time of the

commission of the alleged crime.

A perusal of the facts on record would go to show

that family of respondent No.2-complainant is settled at USA.

Her husband died on 1.12.2008 at USA. It is the case of

respondent No.2-complainant that she came to know in July,

2018 that property of her husband had been sold by the accused

by impersonating someone as her husband and thereafter, the

said property had been sold to many persons and that a

2 of 5

CRM-M-25873-2022 (3)

complaint filed by her to the SHO, Sector-10, Gurgaon, was filed

without taking any action thereon.

A perusal of the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurgram, would show

that the amended complaint along with the relevant mutation

and revenue record, was taken on record. Though, the learned

Magistrate, while passing the order dated 04.03.2022, ought to

have passed a detailed/speaking order, yet as the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, has passed a detailed

order dated 13.05.2022, while dismissing the revision petition,

the said aspect stands already dealt with.

In Suresh Kankra's (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court,

took into consideration the previous litigation between the

parties and the fact the complaint filed by the complainant

being the house help of one Smt. Asha, was false and motivated;

that Asha had earlier registered an FIR against the son of the

petitioner therein, which was found false and accordingly,

quashed. It was under these circumstances after having dealt

with the peculiar facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court

was pleased to hold that before passing the order, the Magistrate

was required to be conscious of the consequences of passing an

order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The factual position of the

present case is entirely different and hence, the said judgment is

of no help to the petitioner.

In Priyanka Srivastava's case (supra), it was held by

the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Magistrate would be well

advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the

3 of 5

CRM-M-25873-2022 (4)

allegations. As noticed above, the learned Magistrate while

passing the impugned order, has taken into consideration the

`Action Taken Report' and then issued the directions for

registration of the FIR. However, in revision, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, has passed a detailed speaking

order. Thus, as the facts of the present case need investigation,

the same can only be done by the police and, therefore, the

impugned order cannot be treated to be unwarranted and

untenable.

In Hemant Yashwant Dhage Vs. State of

Maharashtra, (2016)6 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while

examining the competence of a Magistrate to direct registration

of an FIR in an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has

held that even where a Magistrate does not do so explicitly, but

directs investigation, the police should register an FIR. It was

held as under:-

"10. In view of the aforesaid broad consensus amongst the counsel for the various parties, it is not necessary for us to go deeper into the relevant issue of law as to whether the earlier order of this Court dated April 12, 2010 warranted registering of F.I.R. by the police before commencing investigation. But we would like to only indicate in brief the law on this subject expressly stated by this Court in the case of Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another, 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 450 :

(2006) 1 SCC 627. This Court explained that registration of an F.I.R. involves only the process of recording the substance of information relating to commission of any cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer incharge of the concerned police station. In paragraph 11 of the aforementioned case, the law was further elucidated by pointing out that to enable the police to start

4 of 5

CRM-M-25873-2022 (5)

investigation, it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an F.I.R. and even where a Magistrate does not do so in explicit words but directs for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, the police should register an F.I.R. Because Section 156 falls within chapter XII of the Code which deals with powers of the police officers to investigate cognizable offences, the police officer concerned would always be in a better position to take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII once F.I.R. is registered in respect of the concerned cognizable offence."

Thus, keeping in view the nature of allegations levelled by

the complainant, the orders passed by the Courts below do not

call for any interference.

Dismissed.

                                           (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
                                                   JUDGE
04.07.2022
    ds

             Whether reasoned/speaking?                      Yes/No
             Whether reportable?                             Yes/No




                                  5 of 5