The discretion of the magistrate to order a preliminary inquiry and the illustrative nature of the categories mentioned in the Lalita Kumari case.

JUDGMENT :

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State respondents.

2. The instant application U/S 482 Cr.P.C has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No.1357 of 2023 (Khalid Khan Advocate and another Vs. Mukesh Solanki and others), whereby in an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, learned Magistrate has directed for a preliminary inquiry to be conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Modinagar, with regard to the allegations made in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the case are that one Satyendra Pal was murdered, for which a Case Crime No.620 of 2022 (State Vs. Aakash alias Tasni and others), u/s 302/32, 120-B IPC, was registered at P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad on the complaint of Sonu Pal S/o deceased Satyendra Pal. Though in the complaint, the accused were named, however, the police after investigation arrested another son of said deceased Satyendra Pal namely Monu Pal for the murder of his father Satyendra Pal. He was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.07.2023 and the police sought the remand of the said accused Monu Pal. The said remand was granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the following conditions;

^^1- ;g fd vfHk;qDr eksuw iq= lrsUnz iky dk iqfyl vfHkj{kk fjekaM fnukad 11-07-2023 dks le; izkr% 10-00 cts izkjEHk gksdj ls fnukad 11-07-2023 dh lka; 06-00 cts dks jgsxkA

2- foospd vfHk;qDr dks tsy ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk fjekaM ij ysus ls iwoZ rFkk iqfyl vfHkj{kk fjekaM ls tsy esa nkf[ky fd;s tkrs le; vfHk;qDr dk esfMdy ijh{k.k djk;sxsaA

3- vfHk;qDr dks fdlh Hkh izdkj esa ekufld o 'kkjhfjd :i ls izrkfMr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA izrkfMr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA

4- vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr ds lkFk tk ldrs gS ysfdu os iqfyl dh Hkh dk;Zokgh esa dksbZ ck/kk mRiUu ugha djsaxsa rFkk vfHk;qDr ls mfpr nwjh cuk;s j[ksxsaA

5- vfHk;qDr ;fn pkgs rks vius [kpZ ij iqfyl vfHkj{kk fjekaM esa gLr{ksi fd, fcuk iqfyl }kjk dh dk;Zokgh dh ohfM;ksxzkQh djk ldrk gSA^^

4. The applicants herein are Advocates. In terms of the aforesaid order dated 10.07.2023, escorted the police and after maintaining a distance, he was recording the search operation and making videography of the search operation by the police, which was to be conducted at the indication of said Monu Pal.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits during the said search operation, the applicants herein, who are Advocates were escorting the police search operation and were recording the same. The police on reaching the spot where from the alleged recovery has been conducted by the police team, when the police realized that the entire incident was being recorded in the video camera, the police officers stopped the videography, then snatched the video camera of the applicant and the police team forcibly confined the applicant and other persons accompanying the applicant and put them in car and took at some distance and tried to threw them on the "Gang Nahar". The aforesaid act of the police team was in violation of the order dated 10.07.2023. Therefore, the said action by the police was beyond scope and was in violation of the order dated 10.07.2023 and therefore, the applicant herein filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C for registering the offence against the erring police officers. Whereupon learned Magistrate, vide order dated 28.07.2023 has directed the preliminary inquiry to be conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and others, AIR (2014)2 SCC 1, the Apex Court has framed the guidelines and prescribed the five categories of the cases where the learned Magistrate can direct the preliminary inquiry to be conducted.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant case is not covered within the five categories prescribed in the cas