Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Varinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Nirmala Devi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. alleged forgery of signature for pmmvy benefits. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dismissal for failing prior police station approach. (Para 3) |
| 3. contention on postal receipts proving police complaints. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. revision maintainable against s.156(3) dismissal order. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. dismiss qua improperly impleaded non-party. (Para 15) |
| 6. prior police approach complied; trial court erred. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. act on complaint disclosing cognizable offence. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. remand for fresh decision per observations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.02.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra (H.P.) (learned Trial Court), vide which an application under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code (in short “Cr.P.C.”) for directing the Station House Officer (in short “SHO”) to register the First Information Report (in short “FIR”) was dismissed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present peti
Revision maintainable against dismissal of Section 156(3) CrPC application; prior police complaints evidenced by postal receipts satisfy precondition; forgery to obtain scheme benefits discloses cogn....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for judicial reasoning and compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC before resorting to Section 156(3) of the CrPC, as ....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to determine the necessity of police investigation based on the nature of allegations and available evidence.
The Magistrate has a duty to order an investigation when a cognizable offense is disclosed in a complaint, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as forgery.
The Magistrate must judiciously exercise discretion in registering FIRs under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring that mechanical refusals are avoided when cognizable offences are disclosed.
Direction for Police Investigation – Option to direct registration of case and its investigation by police should be exercised where some “investigation” is required, which is of a nature that is not....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
