The court held that the order of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, which only leads to the registration of an FIR against a person, cannot be taken as a 'final' order, finally determining any rights of a person. It is more in the nature of an administrative direction flowing from the controlling and supervisory powers of the Magistrate over the Police authorities in the matter of investigation of offences.

JUDGMENT :

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. The hearing of the matter has been conducted through video conferencing on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic.

2. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 08.01.2021, Annexure P-1, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, in criminal complaint No.COMI-106/2020 dated 16.10.2020, Annexure P-9, whereby directions have been issued to register an FIR and for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2021, Annexure P-2, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by holding it as not maintainable.

3. Facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner had advanced a loan to the complainant/ respondent No.2 and an agreement, Annexure P-4, was executed in this regard. The petitioner gave a cheque, Annexure P-3, of Rs.3.50 lacs. However, the complainant and her husband did not return the amount, rather in February, 2020, they demanded Rs.2 lac more from the petitioner for starting a business of stationary items. The petitioner introduced them to a known person, who was running a firm by the name of Sai Printers from where the complainant and her husband purchased stationary items worth Rs.4,13,000/- on credit basis and invoices, Annexure P-5, were raised for the purchase. When respondent No.3, who is the proprietor of Sai Printers, demanded the payment, the complainant prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other and eventually on persistence of respondent No.3 gave a cheque dated 09.07.2020, Annexure P-6, for an amount of Rs.4,13,000/-. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured, with the remarks that the drawer’s signature differs. After serving a legal notice, Annexure P-7, respondent No.3 filed a complaint under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short – “NI Act”) against respondent No.2 in the Tis Hazari Court at Delhi, which is pending. As a counter blast, by taking a false defence to escape from her liability, respondent No.2 filed the complaint dated 16.10.2020, Annexure P-9, before the JMIC. Enquiry was conducted by the police in which the complainant did not participate. Report submitted by the police was not accepted by the Magistrate and the impugned order dated 08.01.2021, Annexure P-1, was passed directing the SHO Police Station Quilla, Panipat, to register an FIR forthwith and conduct investigation in the case. The order, Annexure P-1, passed by the Magistrate was challenged in a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.02.2021, Annexure P-2. Both these orders are under challenge in the present petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order Annexure P-1, passed by the Magistrate is bad in law as a Magistrate has failed to record any reasons in support thereof. Counsel has argued that the revision against the order, Annexure P-1, under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was maintainable and the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in holding it as not maintainable. Still further, he submits that the filing of the complaint by respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was a counter blast to the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act instituted by respondent No.3.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner.

6. Insofar as the legal position pertaining to the recording of reasons in the order passed by the Magistrate and maintainability of revision against the said order is concerned, this Court in M/S Sujan Multiports Limited versus State of Haryana and others, 2019 (3) RCR (Criminal) 372 has held as under:-

“However, the provision of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 does not cast any duty upon the Magistrate to record the reasons, and this omission in language of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,