J U D G M E N T

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”, for short) against the judgment of the learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South), Saket Courts, New Delhi dated 12th July, 2018 dismissing the revision petition preferred by the present petitioner against the orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi dated 7th July, 2018 passed in a complaint case filed by the respondent No.2.

2. The relevant facts leading up to the present petition may be briefly stated. The respondent No.2 had filed a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 190 Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of offences under Section 376/328/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) by the petitioner herein. Along with the said complaint, she also filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the Police for the registration of an FIR against the petitioner for the commission of the said offences under Sections 376/328/120B/506 IPC. This complaint was filed on 21st June, 2018 which was listed before the learned MM on 25th June, 2018 when an Action Taken Report (ATR) was called from the SHO. A report was apparently filed by the Police on 4th July, 2018 concluding that as per the inquiry the allegations raised by the complainant were not found to be substantiated.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the receipt of this report, the learned MM vide orders dated 7th July, 2018 directed the registration of an FIR following the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh(2014) 2 SCC 1. On the same day, vide separate orders, two other applications were also disposed of, one seeking the recording of the statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the other for carrying out the medical examination of the prosecutrix and the alleged accused.

4. Aggrieved by these orders, the present petitioner preferred a revision. The same was disposed of by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South) vide order dated 12th July, 2018 holding that there were no infirmities in the two orders and dismissed the revision petition. It observed that the Criminal Amendment Act of 2013 had made it mandatory for the Police to record the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in cases punishable under Section 376 IPC. Moreover, with regard to the registration of the FIR, it concluded that the inquiry which had been made was only a preliminary inquiry and the learned MM had rightly not treated the ATR as a cancellation report. As registration of an FIR is only for a proper investigation of the matter and after detailed investigation, if the police still came to the conclusion that no offence was made out, it was not precluded from filing a cancellation report.

5. It is the submission of Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the learned MM had not disclosed reasons for directing the registration of FIR and the learned Special Judge erred in upholding the said order despite noticing this fact. It was submitted that when a detailed ATR had been submitted, the learned MM had to consider the same while directing registration of an FIR but in the instant case there was not a single reference to the detailed ATR. It was submitted that the directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. could have been issued only if it was evident that the complainant had approached the police under Section 154(1) or the senior officers under Section 154(3)Cr.P.C. The learned senior counsel submitted that there is no complaint on record addressed to the SHO and therefore, the complaint to the DCP did not meet the requirements under Section 154 Cr.P.C. . Reliance in this regard has been placed on Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 and Lalita Kumari (supra).Thus, without approaching the police, by straightway coming to the court and requiring the registration of an