The court emphasized the need for proper application of mind by the Magistrate before directing investigation and clarified that the pendency of civil proceedings does not automatically bar criminal prosecution.

1. Two petitions under section 561-A Code of Criminal Procedure -- one by Shri S. Balbir Singh, Advocate, District Court Kathua and another by S/Shri Basant Singh and others came to be filed on 27.12.2006 and 13.5.2009 respectively, to seek quashment of order of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 19th December 2006, whereby Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercise of powers under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on a complaint presented by Shri Isher Das son of Late Anant Ram resident of Chhan Lal Din Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua, directed SHO P/S Crime Branch Jammu to register a case and investigate the matter, alleged in the complaint.

2. As inherent jurisdiction of the Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. in both the petitions, is invoked on similar grounds and subject matter of both the petitions is the order dated 19.12.2006, passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, in exercise of powers under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, the petitions are taken up together. The petition filed by Shri S.Balbir Singh and registered as 561-A No. 144/2006, stands admitted vide order dated 17th July 2008. The petition -- 561-A No.76/2009 is also admitted to hearing. Mr. Shukla, appearing for the respondent -- Shri Ishar Dass in both the petitions, accepts post admission notice in Petition -- 561-A No.76/2009.

3. The petitions, accordingly on consensus are taken up for final disposal.

4. The petitioners assailed the impugned order as amounting to abuse of process of court, on the following grounds:-

01. That the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua has failed to give reasons in support of the order and in the process rendered the order illegal and liable to be set aside. It is urged that whenever a complaint, alleging commission of offence/s, is presented before the Magistrate and the Magistrate is of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be forwarded to the Officer Incharge of Police Station, having jurisdiction over the area, on which Magistrate has jurisdiction, the Magistrate is duty bound to spell out the reasons for opting for such a course and not order investigation in a mechanical and slipshod manner.

02. That the Magistrate, while exercising powers under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, is empowered to direct investigation by Officer Incharge of Police Station, the local limits of which fall within jurisdiction of the Magistrate and that the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the present case has no power to ask SHO Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu to register the case as Police Station Crime Branch was not situate within territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

03. That the offence alleged in the complaint fell beyond jurisdiction of Police Station Crime Branch in terms of SRO 133 dated 2.4.1991 and SRO 202 dated 3.6.1999 that superseded the former notification.

04. That the matter in controversy viz. alleged forgery of the will deed, being subject matter of civil proceedings, no parallel criminal proceedings could be initiated in terms of settled legal position.

5. Heard and considered.

6. Before dilating on the grounds urged in the petitions, it may be appropriate to have an overview of the relevant facts discernible from the record.

7. The respondent -- Ishar Dass presented written complaint before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19th December 2006, alleging therein commission of offences punishable under section 465, 467, 471 read with 120-B 109 RPC and section 82 of J&K Registration Act. The case set up by the respondent/complainant -- Ishar Dass, was that his father -- Late Anant Ram on his death on 24th September 2003, has left the respondent/complainant as his sole legal heir, as was evident from the certificate, issued by SHO PS Hiranagar, appended to the complaint as Annexure `A’. The respondent/ complainant’s case was that as the relation between his parents were not cordial, the respondent/complainant’s mother left for her parental home at Bandhwal Tehsil Akhnoor, where the respondent/complainant gr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document