The central legal point established in the judgment is the competency of the Magistrate to order for registration of the case at the police station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C.

Heard the learned counsel perused the judgment of the courts below.

2. The only question involved is as to whether the Magistrate was under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1974) not competent to order for registration of the case at the police station. The learned Magistrate had on the basis of an application moved before him, ordered for registration and investigation of the case by the police under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. The matter till then had not been reported to the police as no case had been registered there at the police station. The learned Sessions Judge in the revision, preferred by the revisionists, had relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1993 (3) ACC 62-Suraj Mai v. State of U. P. , wherein the aforesaid question was considered at length and after relying upon a number of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court, this Court had held that the Magistrate was competent to order for registration of the case at the police station.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has relied upon a single Judge decision of this Court reported in 1995 (32) ACC 519-Mahendra Kumar v. State of U. P,, in which it has been held that the Magistrate can not direct for registration of a case while exercising his power under Sec tion 156 (3), Cr. P. C. and he was competent only to order for investigation of the case. In view of the aforesaid Division Bench decision, no weight can be attached to the Single Judge decision in which the Division Bench decision was not considered by him and his decisions, thus, was a decision per incuriam. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of Honble Supreme Court also in support of his contention that the learned Magistrate was not competent to order for registration of the case at the police station vide 1981 (18) ACC 146-H. S. Bains v. State, (Union Territory of Chandigarh ). After going through this decision, I find that it has got no application to the facts of this case, as it was a decision concerning a police report which was submitted to the Magistrate after investigation. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that the Magistrate was not competent to direct for registration of the case at the police station while ordering for investigation of an application or complaint under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is perfectly in accordance with law and does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India.

4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission.

Petition dismissed.

.