IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

(THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)

Reserved on: 16.10.2020

Pronounced on: 22.10.2020

CRM(M) No.330/2020

Taro Devi

...Petitioner(s)

Through: - Mr. Deepak Mahajan, Advocate.

Vs.

Union Territory of J&K &anr.

…Respondent(s)

Through: - None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1)

The petitioner has challenged order dated 09.09.2020 passed

by learned Additional Mobile Magistrate, Samba, whereby the

learned Magistrate has directed SHO, P/S Vijaypur to verify the

matter and if cognizable offences are made out, to proceed in terms

of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2)

Petitioner is primarily aggrieved of the direction of the

learned Magistrate to the extent it asks the SHO to verify the

matterprior to proceeding in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C.

According to the petitioner the learned Magistrate could not have

delegated the power of verification to the SHO.

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT

2020.10.22 14:54

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2CRM(M) N0.330/2020

3)

For appreciating the controversy at hand, it is necessary to

notice the facts of the case.

4)

It appears that the petitioner had filed an application under

Section 153(6) of Cr. P. C before the learned Magistrate seeking a

direction for registration of FIR. In the application it was alleged

that at about 9. 30 a.m. on 29.08.2020, when the petitioner was

working in her land measuring 16 marlas comprised in Khasra No.3

situated at Smball Wali Tehsil Vijaypur District Samba, the accused

persons, armed with Dharatis and clubs, trespassed into the said

land and hurled abuses upon the petitioner. It is also alleged that the

petitioner somehow managed to escape from the spot otherwise she

would have been physically harmed by the accused persons. It was

also alleged in the application that the petitioner had approached the

SHO concerned as well as the SSP concerned but her efforts to get

the case registered against the accused persons did not bear any

fruits. Accordingly, she approached the learned Magistrate with a

request to issue a direction for registration of a case against the

accused persons in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C.

5)

It seems that the learned Magistrate vide a detailed order

dated 09.09.2020, after noting the contents of the complaint and the

submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, directed SHO P/S

Vijaypur to verify the matter and if cognizable offences are made

out, to proceed in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. It is this

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT

2020.10.22 14:54

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3CRM(M) N0.330/2020

direction of the learned Magistrate which is under challenge before

this Court by way of instant petition.

6)

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the learned Magistrate has delegated the power vested under

Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C to the SHO concerned. It has been

further contended that there was no occasion for the learned

Magistrate to get the matter verified when the application of the

petitioner on the face of it disclosed commission of cognizable

offences against the accused. According to the learned counsel, the

impugned direction of the learned Magistrate is in violation of

various judgments of the Supreme Court to which he has made

reference in the petition.

7)

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record of the case.

8)

Section 154 of Cr. P. C makes its incumbent upon an officer-in-

charge of a Police Station to register an FIR when he receives an

information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. Section

156(3) of Cr. P. C gives jurisdiction to a Magistrate empowered under

Section 190 of Cr. P. C to order an investigation into a cognizable case.

Section 156 of the Code reads as under:

“156. Investigation into cognizable cases

(1) Any officer-in-ch