IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that a Magistrate's order for police investigation under Section 156(3) does not constitute taking cognizance of an offence, allowing for subsequent proceedings under the appropriate legal framework.

ORDER :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1.This revision has been preferred against the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by learned third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2023 arising out of the order dated 10.12.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the application filed by Respondents under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and vide impugned Revisional order dated 27.09.2023, the Additional Sessions Judge has remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for fresh adjudication giving direction to treat the application under Section 156(3) CrPC as complaint and proceed as per chapter XV of the CrPC.

2.Facts of the case, in brief are that, elder brother of the respondent No.1 namely Krishnachand died issue less, therefore, lands bearing khasra Nos, 307/1 area 0.04 acres, 308/1 area 0.02 acres, 297/2 area 2.40 acres, 386/4 area 0.51 acres, 386/6 area 0.51 acres, 309/2 area 0.01 acres, 310/1 area 0.02 acres, 383/3 and 384/3 area 4.11 acres, 340/1 area 0.06 acres and khasra No. 38/1 & 38/2 area 0.83 total 8.51 acres are situated at village Bijore, Patwari halka No. 20 Revenue Circle, Bilaspur, thus respondent No.1 became the owner of the entire lands. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 with his wife in connivance with the government officers have prepared forged Will in the name of their sons and mutated their names in the revenue record. On this, the applicants and respondents have kidnapped Dwarikadish Sahu/respondent No.1 on 07.02.2018, took him to unknown place where they have committed marpit with him and forcefully obtained thumb impression on the documents, for which victim’s wife made written complaint before police Station- Sarkanda on 27.02.2018. Since no action was taken by the Police despite written complaint filed before Superintendent of Police, Inspector General of Police and Mahila Aayog, as such, complainant/ Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking registration of the FIR against the applicant No. 1 to 3 and respondent no. 5 and 9 for commission of offences under Sections 363, 364, 364A, 365,194, 198, 324, 329, 307, 403, 417, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for alleged torture and abduction on 03.10.2019.

3.Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, vide order dated 10.12.2022 has rejected the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that no such document was filed that the police station in charge has refused to register the FIR and denied to investigate the matter, as such there is non-compliance of section 154(1) CrPC and accordingly it has rejected the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

4.Being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 10.12.2022, Respondent No.1/Complainant filed a revision before the Court of third Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur who vide the order dated 27.09.2023 has partly allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 10.12.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and directed to treat the application under Section 156(3) CrPC as complaint and proceed as per chapter XV of the CrPC. Hence, this revision.

5.Counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from perversity and illegality and same deserves to be quashed. He would further submit that learned revisional Court has issued direction under Section 156(3) CrPC without considering the fact that whether Magistrate applied his mind or not and finds a case to proceed further or not. He would further submit that there is delay in filling of the complaint as after six month of alleged incident application under Section 156(3) has been filed and on this court alone the revision should have been dismissed by the revisional Court. He would further submit that the learned revisional Court has committed illegality in directing th