Concealing the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code to lodge an FIR nullifies the Magistrate's order and vitiates subsequent proceedings, warranting their quashing.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - The challenge in this revision is made to order dated 26.07.2013, passed in Criminal Case No.2227 of 2013, State Vs. Siddharth Lamba and Another, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ('the case').

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows: the respondent no.2 ('the informant') filed an FIR (FIR No. 215 of 2012) on 09.08.2012 against the revisionists for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. In this FIR, after investigation, chargesheet under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC was submitted against the revisionists and cognizance was taken, which is the basis of the case. The order dated 26.07.2013 was challenged by the revisionists in C-482 No.667 of 2013 ('the petition'). The petition was decided on 11.07.2013. In fact, it was withdrawn with certain liberties. At the stage of framing of charge, an application was moved for discharge. It has been rejected by the impugned order.

4. In the instant case, before the FIR was lodged, in fact, the informant had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code'), based on which proceedings of Misc. Application No. 126 of 2012, were instituted in the courts of Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ('the 156(3) application'). On the 156(3) application, the court sought a report from Police Station Kashipur. Police Kashipur had reported that no FIR in the matter had been lodged at that police station. Subsequent to it, the application under Section 156(3) of the Code, filed by the informant was rejected on 10.07.2012, by the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. In that order, the court below had observed that it appeared that application under Section 156(3) of the Code was then filed by the informant with some oblique motives. Admittedly, the order dated 10.07.2012, passed on the application under Section 156(3) of the Code was never challenged. But, a few days, thereafter, the informant filed the FIR at the police station.

5. The questions that fall for determination in this revision are as to whether, an FIR could be lodged after rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code? Secondly, if after rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code, on the same allegations, an FIR is lodged and chargesheet filed, what would be its effect?

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionists would submit that the informant had firstly filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code, which was rejected on 10.07.2012. That order had attained finality because it was never challenged. Thereafter, it is argued that concealing the fact that an application under Section 156(3) of the Code filed by the informant had already been rejected, the informant filed an FIR. It is argued that this is impermissible. It vitiates the entire proceedings.

7. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the informant would submit that the scope of Sections 156(3) and 154 of the Code are quite distinct and the power of police is independent. It is argued that in the petition, this was argued on behalf of the revisionists that earlier an application under Section 156(3) of the Code had been rejected. It is argued that the similar question cannot be raised again.

8. It is true that in the petition, this was one of the points that was raised by the revisionists, but, the order dated 11.07.2013 of the Court, passed in the petition, reveals that, in fact, that question has not been finally decided by the court then.

9. Under Section 154 of the Code, information in cognizable cases given to police is recorded. Section 154 of the Code is as hereunder:-

'154. Information in cognizable cases.-(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if