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 cognizable offence mandating Magistrate action over dismissal.

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 petition are that the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the SHO of Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra (H.P.), to register an FIR and take appropriate action against Nirmala Devi (accused/respondent no. 1). It was asserted that the petitioner was married to Nirmala Devi. Their relationship deteriorated within 8 to 10 days of their marriage. The accused withdrew money from the "Pradhan Mantri Matri Vandana Yojna" scheme by forging the complainant’s signature. The supervisor, Manglesh Guleria, knew about the forgery, but he allowed the accused to obtain benefits under the scheme. The complainant made complaints to the Chief Minister’s Helpline, the SHO of the Local Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kangra, and the CDPO Kangra. However, no action was taken. Consequently, the application was filed to take action against the accused.

3. The learned Trial Court held that the documents annexed to the complaint did not establish that the complainant had reported the matter to the SHO, Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, or that he had failed to take action. Since the complainant had not first approached the SHO of the Police Station Baijnath, therefore, the application was not maintainable. Hence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application as not maintainable.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present revision petition, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The accused, Nirmala, had withdrawn money from the "Pradhan Mantri Matri Vandana Yojna" by forging the complainant’s signature. The supervisor, Manglesh Guleria, had also conspired with Nirmala Devi and aided her in withdrawing the amount. The learned Trial Court wrongly held that the complainant had not approached the SHO, and ignored the postal receipts annexed to the application proving the submission of the complaint to the police. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

5. I have heard Mr Vivek Thakur, learned counsel, vice Mr Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel, representing the petitioner/complainant, Mr Bhim Raj Sharma, learned counsel, for respondent No. 1/accused, and Mr Abhinav Ghhabroo, learned counsel, for respondent No.2.

6. Mr Vivek Thakur, learned counsel, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner/complainant, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. The complainant had specifically mentioned in his application that he had earlier filed complaints before the SHO, local Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, Deputy Superintenden