The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate has the discretion to refuse to order registration of an FIR in appropriate cases, and the prosecution is required to establish a prima facie case before summoning an accused in a criminal case.

Hari Pal Verma J.

Petitioner Babita Rani wife of Prince Kumar has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing the judgment dated 10.4.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Annexure P-3) whereby her revision petition filed against the order dated 17.1.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali, was dismissed. Learned Magistrate has dismissed her complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and declined to summon the accused.

2. Briefly stated, petitioner had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking direction to the respondent-State to register an FIR under Sections 379, 420, 406, 417, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against respondent No.5. As per the complaint, in the year 2007 a DDR bearing No.46 dated 6.9.2007 at Police Station Phase VIII, Mohali was lodged by Prince Kumar, the husband of the petitioner regarding loss of his hand bag containing documents, which include signed cheques of Indian Overseas Bank, Zirakpur Branch, blank stamp papers, letter-pad papers and other relevant papers somewhere in Sector 68, Mohali. But till date those documents have not been found. After the aforesaid DDR, the applicant found that a summoning order dated 21.1.2010 has been issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh, whereby in proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') a cheque bearing No. 585752 dated 6.6.2009 for an amount of Rs. 67,64,019/- was issued for discharge of liability. On presentation, the said cheque, it was dishonoured by the bank. The applicant found that respondent No.5 has prepared a false and fabricated documents while misusing the stolen blank signed cheques of the applicant. On the basis of this cheque, respondent No.5 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner appeared before the police authority and submitted a representation of her false implication in the case by misusing blank signed cheques. Moreover, the account from which the cheque in question was issued, was already closed in the year 2004, but no action thereof was taken by the police authority on the representation. Accordingly, the petitioner filed CRM No.M-35290 of 2010, before this Court, wherein this Court had permitted the petitioner to withdraw his petition, so as to enable the petitioner to avail alternative remedy and to file the present application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by learned Magistrate as the DDR dated 06.9.2007, which has been placed on file only mentions loss of some cheques of Indian Overseas Bank, Zirakpur and it is neither in the statement of complainant nor her husband that the prosecution lodged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act at Fatehgarh Sahib Court is qua cheques issued by the said Bank i.e. Indian Overseas Bank, Zirakpur. The petitioner has neither placed on record the copy of cheque qua which she has been summoned, nor any order of the Court that any bank official has been examined to show that the said cheque, which as per the complaint at Fatehgarh Sahib dated 6.6.2009 was part of cheque book containing the said series, which was issued by the bank prior to lodging the DDR dated 6.9.2007.

4. Against the dismissal of the complaint filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., petitioner preferred a revision petition against the order dated 17.1.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali, but the same was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali on the ground that the contents of complaint and evidence led on record by the complainant does not disclose any offence on the face of it and the learned Magistrate has rightly held that no sufficient grounds are made out to summon the accused to face trial in any offence. Reference of Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magi