R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J.

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

2. In this petition, petitioners have questioned the legality of the order dated 29. 7. 1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, by which he was directed the S. H. O. Jhabrera, district Hardwar to register a case under Sees. 167/218/219/466/467/468/471/477-A/474 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. and to investigate the offences and to submit his report to the Court. This order has been passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ).

3. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid order are that respondent No. 2 Brahma Singh filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, which has been filed as An-nexure-I to this petition, under Section 156 (3) of the Code with the prayer that the S. H. O. Jhabrera be directed to register the case at the police station and to investigate the offence. In the application he has stated that he attempted to

lodge a F. I. R. and with this purpose he went to the police station Jhabrera but the police being in collusion refused to record his report. His grievance, as stated in the application, appears to be that he is an hand icapped person. Agricultural land viz. plot No. 102 with area 1. 321 acres is recorded in his name in Khata No. 61. It has been alleged by him that the petitioners in collusion with the consolidation staff forged a parvana Amaldaramad purporting to have been issued under Section 34/35 of the Land Revenue Act from the Court of Tkhsildar, Roorkee, bearing case No. 419 of 1991, dated 30. 9. 91. On the basis of this forged parvana Amaldaramad, petitioners got their names recorded and thereafter on 13. 5. 1992, the Parvana Amal daramad was returned to the Tkhsildar after compliance. The Tkhsildar, however, enquired into the matter and it has been found that no such Parvana was issued either from his Court or from any Court of Naib-Tkhsildar. The Tahsildar intimated to the consolidation authorities that Parvana Amaldaramad was forged and any entry made on the basis of the same should be corrected. On these allegations it has been stated that the petitioners have knowingly forged the document and used the same as genuine for depriving the respon dent No. 2 of his property and for wrongful gain fraudulently and they are liable to be prosecuted for the offences mentioned above. On receipt of this application the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order.

4. We have heard Shri Devendra Swarup, learned Counsel for the petitioners and also persued the impugned order. Learned Counsel for petitioners assailed the order on the grounds that the learned Magistrate though could direct investigation by police under Section 156 (3) of the Code, however, he could not direct to register the case. Learned Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on a case Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana 1990 (1) Crimes 600.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a Full Bench judgement of this Court Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U. P. 1989 (26) ACC181. It has been further submitted that learned Magistrate was net justified in recording a finding after noticing the state ment of the complainant, respondent No. 2, as no statement on oath was recorded.

6. Lastly, it has been submitted that cognizance could not be taken without proceeding further and witout recording the statements on oath under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have treated the application filed by respondent No. 2 as a complaint and should have adopted the procedure provided under Chapter XV of the Code.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioners and in our opinion none of the submissions made by the learned Counsel can be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A perusal of the application moved by respondent No. 2 clearly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document