Honble Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

2. Smt. Ishrat wife of Arif filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. on 18-9-2006 before C.J.M. Bulandshahr for offences under Sections 452, 376, 511, 504, 506, 354, 323, I.P.C., P.S. Sikandrabad, district Bulandshahr against accused Abdul Haq Shawkeen, Mobin, Kamil, Yamin with the allegations that the alleged accused persons entered into her house forcibly and pushed Smt. Ishrat on the ground and then after tearing off waist tie up (Nara) of her cloths they tried to commit rape on her and molested her. On resistance being shown by her she was beaten as well. Kumari Farah, the nice of the applicant who had reached on the spot hearing shrieks of Smt. Ishrat was also assaulted. Smt. Ishrat as well as Kumari Farah sustained grievous injury and got themselves medically examined in Government Hospital, Sikandrabad. The incident was witnessed by Anwar, Fasal and many others. The accused made their escaped good and while escaping they also threatened the lady with her life. Smt. Ishrat informed police of police station Sikandrabad but they did not act as was expected of them. Mohammad Arif, husband of Ishrat also filed an application on 15-9-2006 before S.S.P. Bulandshahr but in vain and no F.I.R. was registered in respect of the said crime. On these facts the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was filed by Smt. Ishrat. The Magistrate, C.J.M. Bulandshahr, registered the application and vide impugned order dated 4-10-2006 refused to direct the police to register the F.I.R. and investigate the offence and treated the said application as a complaint case and registered it as complaint case No. 5702 of 2006. He also ordered for getting the statement under Section 200, Cr.P.C. recorded and fixed 20-12-2006 after a gap of two months for it.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. at a great length.

4. This is a glaring example of injustice, which is being meted out to the victim at the hands of a Judicial Officer. Unmindful of his duty and the law the C.J.M., Bulandshahr transgressed the mandate of law, which has been spelt out by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCG 335. The application of the applicant clearly disclosed serious offence of attempt to commit rape on a lady and molestation inside her house. I do not understand what will be nature of case, which the C.J.M. Bulandshahr will send for investigation if the present case does not come, in his opinion, within purview for ordering investigation. C.J.M. concerned passed the impugned order in an unmindful manner without looking into the law laid down by the Apex Court. Let me make it clear that the power of investigation lies with the police. Magistrate has no power to investigate any offence. Once the Magistrate does not have any power to investigate he lacks all the ancillary powers to decide whether investigation is required or not. Investigation is the realm of the police under Section 156 read with 157 Cr.P.C. It is for the police to come to a conclusion that the matter requires investigation or not. If it decides not to investigate the matter it will make note of the same and will inform the informant regarding the same. It is for the informant then to take recourse to the law as he deems fit. The Magistrate cannot say that he will not send the application of cognizable offence for investigation as the law is that if the cognizable offence is disclosed the police must register the F.I.R. and must investigate the offence.

5. The Apex Court has held that if the F.I.R. of cognizable offence is not registered by the police it flouts the mandate of law and act against it. Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. relates with such power police under the orders of the Magistrate. C.J.M. concerned was expected to direct the police to follow the mandate of law. He was not expected to act against the provi