In this post we will discuss about an Injunction case wherein it was held the application filed by the complainant by invoking section 156(3) CrPC, directing the magistrate to order an investigation citing the commission of the cognizable offense by the accused, was dismissed by the magistrate. As the magistrate is not always bound to take immediate cognizance even if the alleged facts disclose the commission of the offense. The failure of the complainant to prove the specific provision of IPC under which the accused can be held liable was among the major reasons for the dismissal of the complaint.
Also Read- POWER OF MAGISTRATE UNDER SECTION 156(3), CRPC
Cognizable offenses are those offenses where the police officers can arrest a convict without any warrant and also start the investigation without the permission of any court. It is defined under section 2 of CrPC. The cognizable offense is usually heinous and includes offenses like Rape, Murder, theft, kidnapping, dowry, and so on. First Information Report (FIR) is always written for cognizable offenses. As per section 154(c) CrPC, a police officer is bound to file an FIR for a cognizable offense. These offenses are both bailable and Non-bailable.
Non-cognizable offenses are those offenses where the police officer cannot arrest an accused without a warrant or start an investigation without the permission of the court. The crime of defamation, forgery, cheating, and so on is a few types of cognizable offenses.
ALSO READ- INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 156 (3) CR.P.C.
Facts
The accused No. 1 is the original allottee of house No. 946, Charan Singh Colony, Mauli, Chandigarh, and he sold the property to accused No. 2 in 1992 for Rs. 20000 and executed GPA and sale agreement in favour of the accused No. 2. In 1996, accused No. 2 sold the property to accused No. 3 for Rs. 35,000 and executed a sub-GPA and agreement to sell in his favour. In 2000, the accused sold the property to the complainant for Rs 2, 04,000, and executed a will and affidavit in favour of the complainant, and handed over the entire document about the property to the complainant. In 2014, the complainant got the electric meter replaced which was still in the name of the accused No.1, Radhey Sham. Later Radhey Sham filed an injunction against the complainant in connivance with accused no 2 and accused no 3 intending to harass and cheat him. The complainant approached the police station.
ALSO READ- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 156 (3) AND 200 OF CRPC
Issues
Accused No. 1 has filed a civil suit of permanent injunction against the complainant and he is obliged to appear and defend the suit filed against him. The complainant filed a case against the accused and it should be assessed as to whether that suit comes under the legal ambit of section 156 (3) CrPC.
Section 156 CrPC
[1]Section 156 CrPC defines a police officer’s power to investigate cognizable offenses
Sub-section 1 states that any police officer in charge of a police station may investigate a cognizable offense without the order of the magistrate which the court has its jurisdiction within the limits of such station would have the power to inquire into or try under the provision of chapter 3.
Sub-section 2 states that no proceedings of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage is called into question because the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate under this section.
Sub-section 3 states that any Magistrate empowered under section 190 CrPC may order such an investigation as above mentioned.
Section 190 CrPC states that any magistrate of the first class or any magistrate of the second class is empowered under subsection 2, may take cognizance of any offense upon receiving, a) complaint of facts which constitute such an offense, b) upon a police report of such facts, c) upon information received from any person other than the police officer.
The above section clearly states that the police officers are bound to investigate any cognizable offense within their limits when information is received by them. But if the police officers have refrained themselves from investigating such offenses, then the aggrieved person has got a remedy to approach the magistrate. The magistrate under section 156 (3) CrPC is empowered to pass an order of investigation in a scenario where the cognizable offense was committed. However, it is not expressly mentioned in the above section whether the magistrate is mandated to pass an order of registration of that criminal offense and to direct the respective police officers to in charge of that station to hold a proper investigation and take all necessary steps to ensure a proper investigation. However, in multiple judgments by the Apex Court and High Court, it has been held that the magistrate is not bound to take immediate cognizance even if the alleged facts disclose the commission of the offense.
ALSO READ- CAN MAGISTRATE ORDER INVESTIGATION; HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH VIEW
Judgment
From the allegations filed by the complainant to the accused, a case of civil nature is made out. Moreover, the complainant has not specified under what section of IPC any offense is made out against the accused. Further, the counsel of the complainant has produced nothing for establishing that any criminal case is made out against the accused. Hence, the present application submitted by the complainant cannot be considered for registering an FIR against the accused. Therefore, the application submitted by the complainant against the accused is hereby dismissed.
Conclusion
In this case, the application filed by the complainant by invoking section 156(3) CrPC, directing the magistrate to order an investigation citing the commission of the cognizable offense by the accused, was dismissed by the magistrate. As the magistrate is not always bound to take immediate cognizance even if the alleged facts disclose the commission of the offense. The failure of the complainant to prove the specific provision of IPC under which the accused can be held liable was among the major reasons for the dismissal of the complaint.
This post is written by Rakshith Shetty.
For case specific advice, you may contact Top/Best/Expert Criminal Lawyer Advocate in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar.
For more info, dial 99888-17966.
[1] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, section 156, Acts of Parliament, (India)
