Deepika Nandawat vs Sushila Devi Ajmera
2021 Latest Caselaw 17816 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6457/2021

Deepika Nandawat W/o Sh. Jaswant Nandawat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 6-B-20, R.c. Vyas Colony, Dist. Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Sushila Devi Ajmera W/o Sh. Shivprakash Ji Ajmera, 6-B-

19, R.c. Vyas Colony, Dist. Bhilwara.

2.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. AR Chaudhary, PP assisted by
                               Ms. Kamla Gauri



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    Order

26/11/2021

The instant Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the unscrupulous proceedings undertaken by the Judicial

Magistrate by not sending the complaint under Section 156(3) of

the Cr.P.C even when the bare perusal of the FIR discloses

commission of a cognizable offence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

Judicial Magistrate has acted in most casual and cavilon manner in

not sending the complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C

despite the fact that the perusal of the FIR discloses commission

of cognizable offence. He submits that instead of sending the

matter to the police to lodge FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C,

the learned Magistrate has kept the complaint with him since long

and no effective order has been passed. He submits that the

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-6457/2021]

inaction on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate is quite

contemptuous in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 2

SCC Pg.1.

It is very serious issue. As per the mandate of law contained

in Section 154 of the Cr.P.C as well as the guiding principle

enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred

(supra) whenever a complaint is submitted to the Judicial

Magistrate disclosing commission of cognizable offence, he has left

with no other option except to send it to the concerned police

station for lodging of the FIR, however, at this stage, this Court

has not been apprised by the learned Public Prosecutor that what

were the circumstances under which the learned Magistrate was

constrained to keep the matter pending with him instead of

sending it to the police station.

In this view of the matter, let an explanation be summoned

from the learned Judicial Magistrate as to why the complaint has

been kept in abeyance instead of sending the same to the police

under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C despite the fact that the bare

perusal of the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable

offence.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to summon

proceedings, if any, undertaken by the police at the behest of the

same complainant in any police station.

List on 09.12.2021.

(FARJAND ALI),J

178Faheem

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)