The judgment establishes the principle that once cognizance of offences is taken, the trial Magistrate cannot direct registration of an FIR and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements under the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by filing two separate petitions. By virtue of CRMC No. 107/2014, the petitioner has challenged order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Forest Magistrate) Jammu, whereby on a compliant filed by the private respondent, directions have been issued for registration of FIR in light of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs State of Utter Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 as also the FIR bearing No. 6/2014 for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC read with Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act registered pursuant to the aforesaid order. By virtue of CRM(M) No. 712/2022, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11.03.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Forest Magistrate), Jammu in the aforesaid complaint filed by the private respondent, whereby the learned Magistrate has treated the report submitted by the Crime Branch Jammu pursuant to order dated 21.09.2013 of the said Magistrate as one under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).

2. The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that the private respondent filed a complaint before learned trial Magistrate alleging therein that the petitioner is a non State Subject, originally hailing from Palampur Himachal Pradesh, but he in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the Revenue Authorities of District Udhampur has managed to obtain a fake State Subject Certificate by deceiving the State Government. It was also alleged in the complaint that on the basis of the said fake State Subject Certificate, the petitioner has accumulated huge property in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.

3. Upon presentation of the complaint before the learned the Magistrate, the following order was made by the said Magistrate on 21.09.2013:

“This complaint was presented before Ld CJM, Jammu who transferred this complaint to this court for disposal under law and here it is presented by complainant. Complaint is found in order. Office is directed to enter the same in the concerned register.

It is stated in the complaint that accused who is non-state subject originally hailing from Palampur where all his ancestors were residing having movable and immovable properties which has been inherited by the accused in succession. The accused who was married to a Jammu based girl, namely, Auradha Jamwal after marriage accused purchase immovable property as Benami transaction in the name of his wife, father-in-law and brother-in-law. The accused in connivance with the revenue authority of Tehsil Chenani District Udhampur by fraudulent means procured fake state subject on the basis of which the accused has accommodated huge property.

As such SSP Crime Branch Jammu is directed to enquire into the matter and ascertain the truth and falsehood of the complaint in terms of section 202 Cr.P.C. Copy of this order is forwarded to SSP, Crime Branch, Jammu for compliance of this order. For further proceedings put up on 20.10.2017.”

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent-Crime Branch conducted the enquiry and submitted its report before the trial Magistrate on 21.01.2014 wherein it was stated that the petitioner is basically a resident of Palampur Himachal Pradesh and after getting married in Bernai, Jammu, he shifted to Jammu. It was also reported that in the year, 1994, the petitioner managed entries in the revenue record of Village Chenani and in the year, 1999, he in connivance with revenue official/officers of Tehsil Chenani, procured a permanent resident certificate of J&K State Subject.

5. Upon receipt of aforesaid report of enquiry, the learned Magistrate passed the following order on 11.03.2014:

“March II, 2014: Complainant alongwith counsel present. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that pursuant to the enquiry report submitted by SSP Crime Branch, Jammu, FIR should be ordered to be