The main legal point established is that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to direct the police to register and investigate a case under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. without imposing any condition or restriction on the exercise of this power.

This is an applica tion for quashing the order dated 6-12-1996 passed by the Magistrate concerned in Misc. Case No. 123 of 1996 under Section 498-A, 304-B and 201 I. P. C. P. S. Tarwa district Azamgarh whereby the Magistrate issued direction to the Station Officer of the Police Station concerned to register and inves tigate the case.

2. It is asserted that Smt. Asha Devi wife of the applicant died on 21-11-1996 in the hospital due to her illness. Smt. Malti Devi, mother of the deceased moved an ap plication under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. before the Magistrate concerned on 2-12-1996 praying for a direction to the police to register and investigate the case. The sub mission of the learned counsel for the ap plicant is that the deceased died of her natural death, hence noprima facie case was made out against the applicant for the of fences as stated above. As such, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to direct the police to accept the F. I. R. and conduct investigation in the case. The ap plicant filed his objection in the case but the Magistrate ignored to consider his objec tion and denied an opportunity of hearing at the time of passing of the impugned order.

3. The contention of the learned coun sel for the applicant is that the power of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. cannot be exercised unless it is shown that the police has not registered the case in spite of best efforts. He relied on the case of Makendra Kumar v. State of U. P. reported in 1995 A. C. C. 579.

4. I have given my anxious thought to the submission made on behalf of the ap plicant. The submission that the Magistrate was not empowered to issue a direction to the police to register and investigate the case unless it is shown by the complainant that the police has not registered the case in spite on the best efforts is not sustainable inasmuch as the legislature has not left the victims of cognizable offences for investiga tion of such offences at the mercy or sweet-will of the police, but the Statute empowers the Magistrate to command the Station Of ficer to register and investigate any cognizable offence under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and the case cited by the learned coun sel is not applicable to the facts and cir cumstances of the present case as the bail order in the above case was passed consider ing this ground and releasing the accused on bail, but in the present case the authenticity of the order has been challenged in inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The Division Bench of this Court has laid down a rule of law in the case of Surajmal v. State of U. P. reported in 1993 A. C. C. S" that the Magistrate is fully com petent to direct the police to register and investigate the case. Further, no provision of law imposes any condition or restriction on the exercise of the power of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C.

5. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order is concerned, the Magistrate is not required under any provision of law to afford an opportunity of hearing to a proposed or alleged offender before the cognisance of the offence is taken of the case is registered, as such he has committed no illegality in ignoring the objection raised by the applicant before he passed the order directing the police to register the case against the applicant.

6. In the facts and circumstances stated above, I find no ground to quash the order of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. directing the police to register and in vestigate the case.

7. Accordingly the application is rejected.

Application dismissed.

.