The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicial discretion in issuing directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the petitioner's ability to prove the case by leading evidence on his own.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 16.2.2017 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.112A/16 (New Criminal Revision No.204418/2016) by which the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 8.10.2015 dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was upheld.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned orders of the court below cannot be sustained. The petitioner was abducted by respondents No.2 to 6 in broad day light on 4.6.2014. The incident was captured in CCTV footage. The petitioner was falsely implicated in case FIR No.125/2014 registered under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Pul Prahlad Pur with the connivance with respondents No.2 to 7. After abduction, he was taken to a unknown place in a car and was asked to pay Rs.50,00,000/- to settle his son’s matrimonial dispute. He was made to sign certain blank papers. At 6.43 p.m., a complaint was lodged on e-mail about his abduction which was not acted upon. At 11.00 p.m. he was arrested in case FIR No.125/2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the complaint lodged with the police disclosed commission of cognizable offence. The police was under legal obligation to lodge the FIR.

3. Undisputedly, the petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No.125/2014 registered under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Pul Prahlad Pur. The said case has been lodged on the complaint of respondent No.5, (petitioner’s daughter-in-law). Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has already been submitted in the court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested in the said proceedings at 11.00 p.m. on 4.6.2014. It is informed that after the lodging of the FIR, the petitioner was taken to the Police Station for interrogation and subsequently was arrested in the FIR No.125/2014.

4. It is relevant to note that in the case filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had sought Status Report/Action Taken Report from the concerned police station before deciding the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the Status Report filed by the office of DCP (south-east) it was informed that the matter was investigated but the allegations could not be substantiated.

5. Seemingly, soon after his alleged abduction, the petitioner did not move the police machinery to lodge any complaint. The present complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was filed along with application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in April, 2015. The delay in lodging the complaint case has remained unexplained.

6. The courts below have observed that the petitioner himself was in possession of all the evidence and could prove his case by leading evidence on his own. There was no suggestion by the complainant as to what evidence was required to be collected through police investigation or in what manner assistance of the State machinery was required. These observations have been endorsed by the Revisional Court. This Court finds no valid reasons to take different view. It is to be seen during trial if the petitioner’s arrest in case FIR No. 125/2014 was in violation of the due procedure. The police officials were under legal obligation to interrogate the petitioner in the FIR where serious allegations under Section 376 IPC were leveled against him.

7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had filed another Complaint Case No.106/2013 against her daughter-in-law and others. In the said case not only the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed but the court also declined to take cognizance and it was dismissed by an order dated 24.2.2015. Order dated 24.4.2015 in Criminal Revision No.90/2015 filed by the petitioner reveals that an application under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. to se