Court No. - 65

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41207 of 2022

Applicant :- Smt Anam

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Chandra

Pandey,Dinesh Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.

for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed

with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.09.2022

passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court

No.12, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. 102 of 2021

(Smt. Anam Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order

dated 27.07.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Moradabad in Misc. Case No. 6359 of 2021 (Smt. Anam

Vs. Musarraf), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police

Station Mughalpura, District Moradabad.

Brief facts of the case are that an application was filed by

the applicant on 15.01.2021 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and

learned Magistrate after considering the entire allegations

and material on record directed the application to be

treated as a complaint for recording the statement of the

complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. vide order dated

27.07.2021.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27.07.2021,

criminal revision was preferred by the applicant being

Criminal Revision No. 102 of 2021 (Smt. Anam Vs. State

of U.P. and Another) mainly on the ground that the

application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses

cognizable offence, as such, it would require the learned

Magistrate to direct the police to register the F.I.R. under

Section 154 Cr.P.C and investigate the same.

The Revisional Court after taking into consideration the

entire material on record and being of the opinion that the

complainant has full knowledge of the entire facts as well

as accused persons and his witnesses and is able to lead

his evidence before the court, as such, order for directing

the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to be treated

as a compliant is just, proper and legal and does not call

for any interference and rejected the revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that

since from the allegation made in the complaint,

cognizable offence is clearly disclosed, as such, it was

incumbent upon the Magistrate to direct the police to

register a case under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and investigate

the same.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that upon

receiving the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the

Magistrate may in its discretion either direct the police to

register the case under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and

investigate the same or may treat the application under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and proceed further

for recording the statements of the witnesses under

Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

Learned AGA has further submitted that there is no

provision that the Magistrate may not treat the application

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and make an

enquiry by recording the statements of the witnesses

under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and looking to the

circumstances that the applicant has full knowledge of the

facts of the case and accused as well as his witnesses

can lead his evidence in the court. The view taken by the

learned Magistrate in treating the application under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as a complaint, is just, proper,

legal and does not call for any interference by this Court

at this stage.

It is well settled principle of law that in case, an

application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed by the

applicant, the Magistrate in its discretion may direct for

registration of the F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or treat

the same as a complaint and proceed further by recording

the statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 and

202 CrPC as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of

Mohd Yusuf Vs. Afaq Jaha