IMPORTANT POINT:
Complainant should avail statutory remedy before moving High Court.

JUDGMENT

Ranjana Pandya, J.—This revision has been preferred to quash the impugned order dated 20.04.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda in case no. 431 of 2014.

2. Brief facts are that the complainant Shiv Dulari had moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. stating that on 16.03.2014 at about 09:30 P.M. when she was at her house, her neighbour Raj Kumar, Kallu and one unknown person came and asked about the whereabouts of her husband. She stated that her husband has gone to Attara. At this all the three persons entered to her house and made her naked and tried to gang rape her. On hue and cry being raised by the complainant, her children come from the adjoining room then the accused ran away abusing all the people and threatening to kill them. The complainant went to the police station to lodge a report but her report was not lodged. The senior officers were also informed but no action was taken. Hence, this application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was presented which was dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2014.

3. Learned lower court opined that there was no reason to get the case registered and investigated.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that Section 124 Cr.P.C. has been amended and proviso has been inserted by virtue of which such information shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon LAWS (SC)-2013-11-15 (Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P.) in which it has been held that how a report has to be dealt with when it is filed and the police officers should lodge a report in case a cognizable case is made out.

6. The Hon’ble Court in Lallan Chaudhary and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 229 in which it has been laid down that Section 154 of the code thus casts a statutory duty upon the police officer to register the case, as disclosed in the complaint, and then to proceed with the investigation.

7. In Minu Kumari and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 359 it has been laid down that:-

“Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse the authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse.”

8. Similarly, in Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171 it has been held as under:-

“while dealing with the issue whether it is within the powers of courts to issue a writ directing the police to register a First Information Report in a case where it was alleged that the accused had made speeches likely to disturb communal harmony, this Court held that “the police officers ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that a cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code. As such, the Code itself provides several checks for re