2006 Supreme(All) 2970

[2006(10) ADJ 20 (NOC)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : VINOD PRASAD, J.
LAL CHAND NISHAD ...........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. .........Opposite Party
(Criminal Revision No. 6165 of 2006, decided on 9th November, 2006)

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 156(3) and 2(d)—Application—Whether can be treated as a complaint—Application under Section 156(3) is not a complaint—Within meaning of Section 2(d) of CrPC.

       (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 156(3)—Application thereunder—When discloses commission of cognizable offence—Magistrate had no right to refuse prayer for registration of FIR—Investigation of offence.

       (C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 156(3)—Application thereunder—Magistrate taking cognizance suo-motu—By transforming an application under Section 156(3) into complaint—Trial Court cannot be come party to litigation—Such cognizance illegal.

       (D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 190—Cognizance—Conditions necessary for—There are three eventualities—First under Section 190(1)(a) relates with filing of complaint—Which is sole domain of complainant/victim—Second, complainant or victim cannot be compelled to file a complaint—Once he did not went to file a complaint—Trial Court cannot take cognizance suo-motu.