JUDGMENT :

1. As these petitions have been separately filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the common order dated 12-4-2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni in Complaint Case No. Unregistered/2018 whereby the learned trial Court gave a direction to the police in exercise of powers under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code to investigate into the complaint filed by the respondent, the same were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioners are police personnel. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a complaint case against the petitioners on 16-2-2018 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni alleging that on 19-11-2015 when he was going to Jabalpur, all the petitioners along with other persons restrained and arrested him. Thereafter, a false case was made against him. It is submitted by the petitioners that during the execution of warrant on 19-11-2015, the respondent manhandled them, resultantly Brajesh Shukla sustained injuries. Another case vide Crime No. 647/2015, under sections 353, 332 and 427 of Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioners for pressurizing him. Respondent-complaint filed a complaint case against petitioner-Anurag Pathak (Head Constable) which was registered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. All the facts are suppressed by the respondent, hence, the entire proceeding initiated at the instance of respondent is an abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed. Learned Magistrate passed an order of registration of a case, mechanically without assigning any reason and without applying the mind. It is also submitted that the prosecution of the petitioners is not tenable without sanction under section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that the learned trial Court is empowered to direct the police to register as FIR against the accused persons and to investigate into the matter.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the case of Ramyash Tiwari vs. State of M. P., 2013 (2) MPHT 521, in which, the following directions have been given :

“(i) Whenever a Magistrate is called upon to pass orders under section 156(3) of the Code, at the outset, the Magistrate should ensure that before coming to the Court, the complainant did approach the police officer in charge of the police station having jurisdiction over the area for recording the information available with him disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence by the person/persons arrayed as an accused in the complaint. It should also be examined what action was taken by the SHO, or even by the senior officer of the police, when approached by the complainant under section 154(3) of the Code.

(ii) The Magistrate should then form his own opinion whether the fact mentioned in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons arrayed in the complaint which can be tried in his jurisdiction. He should also satisfy himself about the need for investigation by the police in the matter. A preliminary enquiry as this is permissible even by an SHO and if not such enquiry has been done by the SHO, then it is all the more necessary for the Magistrate to consider all these factors. For that purpose, the Magistrate must apply his mind and such application of mind should be reflected in the order passed by him. Upon a preliminary satisfaction, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be recorded in writing, a status report by the police is to be called for before passing the final orders.

(iii) The Magistrate, when approached with a complaint under section 200 of the Code, should invariably proceed under section Chapter XV by taking cognizance of the complaint, recording evidence and then deciding the question of issuance process to the accused. In that case also, the Magistrate is fu