Point of law : Provisions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. They should not be used unless there is something unusual and extra ordinary like miscarriage of justice, which warrants a direction to the Police to register a case. Such applications should not be allowed because the law provides them with an alternative remedy of filing a complaint, therefore, recourse should not normally be permitted for availing the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Arvind Nath Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.K. Rajbhar, learned counsel, who appears for the opposite party No.1.

2. The applicant has filed present application purported to be under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 7.6.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.519 of 2019, Anil Kumar Vs. Akram Guddu Mistri and others, under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 471, 120(B), 34, 406 I.P.C. against opposite parties no.2, 3 & 4 as well as the order dated 20.8.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.115 of 2019, Anil Kumar Vs. Akram Guddu Mistri and others, under Section 397 Cr.P.C. passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Jhansi.

3. According to the applicant Gata No.313 Rakba 0.24 hectare situate in Village Mau, Tehsil Mauranipur, which is recorded as Pokhar in the revenue records. However, the opposite parties have illegally encroached the said Pokhar and have constructed Panchyat Bhawan over it.

4. In the nutshell, according to the applicant, opposite party no.2 is a Gram Prdhan, opposite party no.3 is a Lekhpal and opposite party no.4 is a Gram Panchayat Adhikari, who convinced each-other, have illegally encroached the said piece of land which has been recorded as Pokhar for the purposes of construction of Panchayat Bhawan after passing illegal and unwarranted resolution in this regard.

5. As per the case set forth by the applicant, the applicant preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the C.J.M. Jhansi for issuance of an appropriate direction for lodging an FIR under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 471, 120(B), 34, 406 I.P.C. which was numbered as Case No.519 of 2013, Anil Kumar Vs. Akram Guddu Mistri and others. The application so preferred by the applicant before C.J.M. Jhansi came to be rejected by virtue of passing an order dated 7.6.2019.

6. The applicant being aggrieved against the order dated 7.6.2019 preferred a revision which was numbered as Criminal Revision No.115 of 2019, Anil Kumar Vs. Akram Guddu Mistri and others. A copy of memo of revision has been annexed as annexure-5 to the application. That the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Jhansi has now passed an order dated 20.8.2019 rejecting the revision so preferred by the applicant upholding and affirming the order dated 7.6.2019.

7. The applicant now is before this Court challenging the aforesaid both orders.

8. Before proceeding further this Court finds necessary to quote provisions contained under Section 154 and Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under:

“154. Information in cognizable cases.

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.”

“156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without