Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSH BUNGER, J.
Gurtej Singh @ Teji & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M NO. 47384 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the legal conflict between parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners challenge revocation of their revision petition. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. counsel arguments regarding maintainability of the revision. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's deliberation on the nature of section 156(3) orders. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. clarification of interlocutory nature of magistrate's order. (Para 22 , 26) |
| 6. court's duty not to assess merits of alleged offences at this stage. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. final dismissal of both petitions. (Para 36 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.
This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M- 47384-2017 titled as "Gurtej Singh @ Teji and Others v. State of Punjab and Another" and CRM-M-47577-2017 titled as "Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another" as both the petitions have emanated from a common order dated 21.01.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur, upon an application under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") filed by respondent No.2-complainant (Nazar Singh) against the petitioners in both the cases alongwith other persons, was allowed and police was directed to register FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. under the relevant provision of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC").
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of these cases are that respondent No. 2 - complainant (Nazar Singh) filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against one Des Raj and others (including the petitioners in both the cases) before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur; wherein it was stated that he (Nazar Singh) had purchased land measuring 401 Square yards situated at village Shahpur vide registered Sale deed No. 2191 dated 30.11.1999 and thereafter he constructed his residential house thereon and even an electric connection (bearing account no. S94CN170616W) was installed therein and respondent No.2- complainant (Nazar Singh) was residing in this house alongwith his wife and sons. It was alleged that Des Raj and others (including the petitioners in both the cases) wanted to interfere in the peaceful possession of respondent No. 2-Complainant (Nazar Singh) and on such threats, respondent No.2- complainant (Nazar Singh) filed a Civil Suit (CS/1021/2016) dated 14.09.2016 titled as " Nazar Singh v. Des Raj and others" seeking relief of prohibitory injunction and vide order dated 14.09.2016, order of status quo regarding possession till further orders was passed, which was duly communicated to the defendants in the suit. It was further alleged in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that some of the respondents therein tried to pressurize respondent No. 2- complainant (Nazar Singh) to withdraw the suit, which was denied and police officials brought respondent No. 2-complainant (Nazar Singh) to PP Kalajhar on 20.09.2016 and kept him in illegal custody from 4:00 pm of 20.09.2016 to 2:00 pm of 21.09.2016. It was further alleged that on 21.09.2016, all the respondents formed an unlawful assembly with common object and intention trespassed in the residential house of respondent No.2-complainant (Nazar Singh) by breaking open the lock of single iron gate of house of Nazar Singh for making passage and dug earth from the house of respondent No.2- complainant (Nazar Singh), constructed wall in the dug out area and demolished old wall. On 23.09.2016, they increased the length of the newly constructed wall, detached single iron gate and took it to their unknown place without the consent of respondent No.2-complainant (Nazar Singh) and some of the respondents used force, assault and confined wife of respondent No.2-complainant (Nazar Singh) in room. Other allegations of assault, wrongful restraint and confinement, theft, destruction of property etc. were also made.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur, after considering the material available on the recor
An order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing police to register an FIR is not revisable and is considered an interlocutory order, thus barred under Section 397(2).
As per Section 154 of Cr.P.C. object of registration of FIR is that every information relating to cognizance of offence whether or given orally or otherwise officer incharge of police station has to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that orders made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register and investigate a case are not open to revision at the instance of ....
Point of law : Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised if there appears to be patent defect in exercise of jurisdiction or irregularities manifestly crept in while passing an order and this eventual....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to determine whether to direct an investigation, particularly in civil disputes masquerading as criminal matters.
Point of Law : Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot act as a post office as the Magistrate has to apply his mind with regard to the fact as to whether the cas....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
