Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2011 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 1535 - SC - Indian LawsWhether application filled before magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Code praying to direct the Officer-in-charge of Police Station to register complaint u/s 156(3) be treated as complaint u/s 200 - In the present case it was alleged by the respondent No. 3 that the police officer in charge of the police station had refused to register her complaint and, therefore, she had made application to the Senior Superintendent of Police as required by Section 154(3) of the Code, but of no avail. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 had approached the appellant, who was then discharging duties as Judicial Magistrate praying to direct the Officer-in-charge of Police Station to register complaint u/s 156(3). Appellant directed to proceed case u/s 200. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 invoked jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code to quash the passed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge expressed the view that the appellant had passed the order ignoring all judicial disciplines and had not at all applied her judicial mind. he severely criticized the conduct of the appellant and recorded his serious displeasure against the appellant for passing such type of illegal orders. Therefore, set aside the order passed by the appellant, and directed the appellant to decide the application of the respondent No. 3 within the ambit of her power u/s 156(3) of the Code. while setting aside the order has given rise to the present appeal. HELD THAT:- Under the circumstances the appellant had exercised judicial discretion available to a Magistrate and directed that the application, which was submitted by the respondent No. 3 u/s 156(3) of the Code, be registered as complaint and directed the Registry to present the said complaint for recording the statement of the respondent No.3 u/s 200 of the Code. Under the circumstances, the judicial discretion exercised by the appellant, to proceed u/s 200 of the Code could not faulted with nor the appellant could be subject to severe criticism as was done by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the disparaging remarks made by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, were not justified at all and, therefore, the appeal will have to be accepted.
|