(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 156 (3), 190 and 200 -- private complaint -- date for recording preliminary evidence fixed after applying mind -- cognizance of offence taken -- case cannot be sent for police investigation thereafter.

A Magistrate can order investigation under section 156 (3) only before taking cognizance under sections 190, 200 and 204 and where a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of Chapter] 4 he is not entitled in law to order any investigation under section 156 (3). AIR 1976 SC 1672, AIR 2005 SC 4284, (2008) 2 SCC 492, AIR 1963 SC 765 and AIR 1961 SC 986 followed. [Paras 5 & 6

(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 202, proviso and 156 (3) -- cases not falling within the proviso to S. 202 -- may be got investigated by the police -- that investigation would be in the nature of an enquiry under S. 202. AIR 1977 SC 2401 followed. [Para 6

(3) Criminal P.c., 1973 -- S. 201 -- Magistrate not competent to take cognizance for want of territorial jurisdiction -- he can return the complaint for presentation to proper Court. 2001 (2) JLJ 321 (SC) followed. [Para 8

ORDER

1. This is a suo motu revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code').

2. The orders in question are passed by Shri P.L. Dinkar, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Itarsi, Distt. Hoshangabad with regard to the complaint made by the noticee Deepak Agrawal against Smt. Soniya Gandhi, President, Sanyukta Pragatisheel Gathbandhan, Shri Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister, Govt. of India, Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj, Minister, Ministry of Law & Justice Govt. of India, Sushri Ambika Soni, Minister, Culture and Tourism Ministry, Govt. of India, Shri S.T. Raghwan, Additional Secretary to Ministry of Road, Transport Rajmarg & Shipping Corporation and e. DorJi, Director, Indian Archaeological Survey, New Delhi, in respect of the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 124A, 295 and 295-A of the IPC. According to the complainant-noticee, all the six accused persons were involved in a conspiracy in pursuance of which, they had managed to submit affidavits sworn in by the accused Nos. 5 and 6 before the Supreme Court in respect of the Sethusamudram Project, with intent to outrage religious feelings of Hindus who believe that Sethusamudram, popularly known as Ramsethu or Rama's Bridge was built by Lord Rama.

3. The facts giving rise to this revision may be summed up as under:

(a) The complaint was presented on 6.10.2007. However, instead of examining the complainant at once as per the mandate of section 200 of the Code, the learned Magistrate proceeded to fix 6.11.2007 as the date for recording of the preliminary evidence. The matter was further adjourned for the purpose to 27.12.2007 and 28.1.2008 respectively.

(b) On 28.1.2008, the learned Magistrate, upon the request made by the complainant, forwarded the complaint to the SHO, Itarsi for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code with a direction to submit report on 18.3.2008.

(c) On 6.2.2008, in view of the fact that the consequent registration of case by the police had received wide publicity through media, the learned Magistrate recorded an explanation that he had neither taken cognizance of the offence, under section 190 of the Code nor instructed the SHO to register a case. He also directed the SHO to submit report.

(d) On 7.2.2008, the SHO reported that he had not received any order to conduct investigation into the matter.

4. Taking note of the palpable jurisdictional errors committed by the Magistrate, this revision was entertained and notice was issued to the complainant to show cause as to why the order dated 6.10.2007 and subsequent proceedings initiated upon his complaint should not be quashed. In response, the complainant-noticee, instead of filing a reply, has preferred to submit written arguments. With reference to these arguments, I have also heard learned Panel Lawyer at length.

5. The declaration

Click Here to Read the rest of this document