Magistrates have discretion under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. to treat applications for investigation as complaints, emphasizing judicial reasoning and necessity for police involvement.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Monis, Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 & 3, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on the record.

2. Challenge in this application is to the impugned order dated 18.9.2024 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1583 of 2024 ( Pradeep Kumar Vs. Mohit Kumar and others ) arising out of proceeding under section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. Police Station Sheoli, District Kanpur Dehat.

3. The allegations made in the application under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. are that the opposite parties on 29.7.2024 at about 08:30 P.M. at night, when the injured of the case Sandeep had gone to attend the call of nature, was caught hold by the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 due to previous enmity and then his right leg was tied up with barbed wire and then tied to a motorcycle through which he was dragged for quite a distance. It has further been alleged in the application that the entire leg of the injured Sandeep was amputated after which the accused left Sandeep and run away. The applicant coming to know of the incident is said to have rush to the spot along with other family members and saw that Sandeep was lying bleeding, who was then taken to Police Station Sheoli, District- Kanpur Dehat, where no action was taken, thereafter he was taken to Hallett Hospital then to Rawat Pur Catology Hospital, where the Doctors gave up on the injured, post which he was taken to the S.G.P.G.I. Lucknow, where at the time of moving of the application he was still being treated. The applicant supposedly went to the house of the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 complaining as to why they had cut off the leg of his brother on which the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 allegedly abused him and threatened him that the applicant and his brother would both be killed. The information regarding this incident is said to have been given to the Superintendent of Police, District- Kanpur Dehat through post, however, when no action was taken, the application under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. was moved.

4. The Learned counsel for the applicant states that his application under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. has been treated as a complaint and notices have been issued to the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 in accordance with the provisions of Section 223 B.N.S.S. and the date has been fixed for recording of the statement of the applicant under Section 223 B.N.S.S. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat has, in an arbitrary, manner treated the application as a complaint, while the matter required police investigation as the same would entail a spot inspection, recovery of the weapon of assault, the motorcycle used in the commission of offence and arrest of the accused and recovery of the material above-mentioned on their pointing out. This also requires custodial interrogation. The Learned counsel for the applicant further states that the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kanpur Dehat has wrongly relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sukhwasi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2007 (59) ACC 739, which was with respect to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and wrongly treated the application of the applicant as a complaint. He contends that the same considerations