Vinod Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by applicant Shyamraj, father of the victim Kismata in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 2.6.06. It was mentioned in the application that the daughter of the applicant namely Kismata was married to Mewa Lal according to Hindu customs and rights Three years later, her Gavana took place. After Gavana when Kismata went to her in-laws house she was tortured due to lust of dowry and her husband Mewa Lal demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the applicant Shyam Raj. Applicant showed his inability to pay the aforesaid amount. Because of non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, the daughter of applicant was again tortured. Three months prior to the date of the incident, son-in-law of the applicant Mewa Lal came to applicant and repeated his of demanded Rs. 50,000/- in the presence of many villagers. The matter however was pacified and the applicant sent Kismata to her in -laws house on 2.6.06 along with his elder brother-in-law Gajraj and his son. On the same night 2.6.06 at 8 P.M. kismata reached back the house of Shyam Raj in half nacked condition, She informed the applicant that she was tortured and assaulted because of non-fulfilment of dowry by her in -laws and even an effort was made to burn her to death by pouring kerosin oil on her. She also informed the applicant that she was abused filthy. Kismita was got medically examined by the applicant Shyam Raj. On 5.6.06 applicant Shyam Raj along with the injury report of his daughter endeavoured to get the FIR registered at the police station but in vain, On 7.6.07 he also filed a written application to S.P But he failed in his endavour to get his F.I.R. registered.
3. With such allegations the applicant Shyam Raj approached the concerned Magistrate on 21.6.06 for getting his F.I.R. registered because the police failed in its statutory duty to register the FIR of cognizable offence.
4. By the order dated 12.7.06, her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected in respect of getting the F.I.R. registered but the Magistrate registered his application as a complaint case and 12.8.06, was fixed for recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid order dated 12.7.06 of refusal in getting the F.I.R. registered was challenged by the Applicant in criminal revision filed in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Basti but his revisions was also dismissed by Special Judge (E.C. Act) Basti, hence this criminal application has been filed seeking direction that the F.I.R. be directed to be registered against the husband and in -laws and they should be prosecuted as police challani case.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A.
6. Averments which were made in the application were that on 2.6.06, because of demand of dowry, the daughter of revisionist-namely Kismata was made naked and she was assaulted and was poured with kerosene oil for being burnt. Regarding the said incident, the F.I.R. was also endeavoured to be lodged by moving application but the F.I.R. was not registered, The victim Kismata was also got medically examined as well. Such averments which were mentioned in the application clearly made out the case under-section 498A and 307 I.P.C. for torture due to demand of dowry and an attempted to burn the victim alive. I fail to understand that if such offences will not be investigated by the police then what matters will be investigated by it. Magistrate committed a manifest error of law for transforming the application of father of the victim and treating it as a complaint case. The Magistrate was dealing with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as pre cognizance stage. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not necessary a complaint. It may be an application only for the purpose of seeking a direction for investigation. The complaint has been defined under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. Application which was filed by father of victim was not within the purview of the aforesaid definition clause. Further the applicant never wanted to prosecute the accused in a complaint case. He only wanted that the offence be investigated. He has not filed a complaint as is required under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence. He has approached the magistrate at a pre cognizance stage for getting his FIR registered. The Magistrate, therefore committed a manifest error in transforming the said application as complaint. Moreover, the victim prayed that her F.I.R. be directed to be registered. His application disclosed commission of cognizable offence. Why the Magistrate did not direct the FIR to be registered is an borne out from the order passed by the Magistrate. It was incumbent on the Magistrate to direct the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation by ordering the registration of F.I.R. of cognizable offence. The Apex Court time and again has reiterated the law that if cognizable offence is disclosed the police is under it's statutory duty to register the FIR and investigate the offence. For a ready reference, some of the judgment of the Apex court are referred as State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr1.) 426; Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar and Ors. 1996 SCC (Cr1.) 111; Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh JT 2001 (2) SC 8. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 in paras 30, 31 and 33 as follows:
30.The legal mandate enshrined in section 154(1) is that every information relating to the commission of a "cognizable offence" (as defined under seclion 2(c) of the code) if given orally(in which case it is to be reduced into writing) or in writing to "an officer in charge of a police station" (within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the code)and signed by the informant should be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the state government may prescribe which form is commonly called as "First Information report" and which act of entering the information in the said form is known as registration of a crime or a case.
31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the code, the concerned police officer can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the code to investigates subject to the proviso to Section 157....In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the Information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the superintendent of police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.
33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any Information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the code. the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.
(Under line Emphasis supplied)
7. In the instant case the reasoning which has been mentioned by the Magistrate is that he can convert application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. into complaint. It is not disputed that the said power is vested in the Magistrate but that power can be exercise by him only in consonance. with the wishes of victim as only he has a right to file a complaint and not the Magistrate. Prosecution of a complaint case and responsibility of bringing of Witnesses lies with the complainant. So much so that in the absence of complainant even the complaint of the complainant can be dismissed and the accused may be acquitted or discharged. Under such a scheme the Magistrate should have look into the application and he should have directed for registration of the F.I.R. against the accused persons of a such a crime. Recently many cases have come up be before this court which has resulted in a miss-carriage of justice. The victim approach the court with the idea that they would get justice and get the accused punished but by passing such types of orders as the one impugned is this application, Magistrate does injustice to him, Allowing the police to flout the law in not registering the F.I.R. and making investigation in an arbitrary manner is wholly illegal and a clear example of injustice which is being meted out to the victim an at the hands of lower courts. Recently it has been hold by the Apex COURT in case of Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCJ Delhi) as follow:
3. Mr., Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, at the outset, invites our attention to the counter - affidavit filed by the respondent and submits that pursuant to the aforesaid observation of the High Court the complaint/representation has been subsequently examined by the respondent and found so genuine case was established. We are not convinced by this submission because the sole grievance of the appellant is that no case has been registered in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 154(1) of the Criminal procedure Code. Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. We are also clearly of the view that the High Court erred in law in dismissing me petition solely on the ground that the contempt petition was pending and the appellant had an alternative remedy. The, ground of alternative remedy nor pending of the contempt petition would be no substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence against the Police Officer.
5. The views expressed by this Court in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 as quoted above leave no manners of doubt that the provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and me concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.
6. Undisputedly in the present case no case was registered pursuant to the complaint dated 9-9-1997 and 13-9-1997 filed by the appellant. It is also not disputed that the Contempt petition CCP No. 307/1997 filed by the appellant Is also pending disposal. before the High Court. It is, however, stated by the. respondent that the non-disposal of the contempt petition is due to the non-prosecution by the appellant. Be that as it may we are of the view that the contempt petition has been pending since 1997 and as such petition should 'be disposed of with a sense of urgency otherwise the petition itself will lose all its force and the purpose for which the contempt is initiated would be defeat.
Magistrates cannot Man see litigation in a complaint case. If the victim Opts for a particular forum to start the litigation, the Magistrate cannot shut His forum and direct him to seek remedy in another forum. It is the choice of the victim to prosecuted the accused persons in the forum which he likes best. Further it is to be noted that the Magistrate can convert an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. into a complaint only when the victim wants him to do so. The Magistrate cannot refuse the prayer for registration of F.I.R. if cognizable offence is disclosed under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. application because it is his legal duty to direct the police to follow mandate of law and register the FIR which it had failed to do so on the earlier occasion. The Magistrate is required to get the law observed by the police & and/not to get it flouted away. More over converting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. into a complaint is subsequent stage. First the Magistrate has to deal with the prayer of the applicant for registration of his FIR. Once cognizable offence is disclosed can the Magistrate refuse prayer for registration of F.I.R. at the instance of aggrieved person against the law laid down by the Apex Court? The answer is No. If cognizable offence is disclosed in an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. it is the legal duty of the Magistrate to direct the police to follow the mandate of law as has been laid down by the Apex Court and direct the police to register the F.I.R. of cognizable offence. Further filing of a complaint by a victim is not an alternative remedy. It is an ancillary remedy. It is not a substitute for registration of F.I.R. of cognizable offence. Both the remedies are open to the victim and it is his choice to select and follow one course. Merely because the victim can file a complaint regarding cognizable offences committed against him, his prayer to direct the police to register the F.I.R. of cognizable offence can not be refused or rejected on the ground of ancillary remedy.
8. Further lower Revisional Court also did not look into the law properly. In the present case, the Magistrate has given no reason at all as to why F.I.R. of torture and attempt to murder should not be registered. The impugned order passed by the Magistrate as well as lower revisional court, therefore, cannot be sustained. This matter has been exhaustively dealt with by this Bench in the case of Masuman v. State of U.P. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment as follows:
Thus, it is clear that a document to be a "complaint" must be made before the Magistrate for his taking action win a defined manner under Chapter XV of the Code after taking cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). Hence, there is a scuttle but well perceptible distinct between a "complaint" and an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that difference lies between the intention and prayer of the applicant. If he wants the Magistrate to take action against the culprits then that is a "complaint". If the aggrieved person does not want to Magistrate take action himself but he wants a different kind of action from him such as a direction to the police to take action then it is not a "complaint". I do not mean to say that if a "complaint" covered by Section 2(d) is filed before the Magistrate, he cannot direct for an investigation. The Magistrate certainly can send a '"complaint" for investigation but that he has to send to the police before he takes cognizance of the offence under. Section 190(1)(a) but after being satisfied that the application discloses, prima facie, commission of a cognizable offence. Thus, it is amply clear that the blanket order of treating every application with a prayer for a direction to register and investigate the FIR can not be registered as a "complaint" by the Magistrate and in case he does so the action will be unsanctified by law. The purpose of a "complaint" and an application for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are entirely different. In this view the matter, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that an application under Section 156(3) cannot be treated to be a complaint on its own by the Magistrate is well founded and has to be upheld. I am fortified in my view from the above judgments of this court.
Coming to the second aspect of the argument which was elaborately submitted regarding the registration of FIR and it's investigation by the police it is to be noted that the FIR is registered under Section 154(1) or under the directions Section 154(3) or 156(3) of the code. All Information which discloses commission of a cognizable offence has to be mandatorily registered under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. and the same has to be investigated under Section 156(1) of the code unless the officer in charge of the police station decides not to investigate it under Section 157(2) of the code for which the officer in charge has to mention his reasons for not entering into such an investigation and inform the informant regarding the said decision. Informant thereafter can take recourse to the remedy available to him under the law.
9. In view of the above, both the impugned orders dated 7.5.07 and 12.7.06 passed by the courts below are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the magistrate concerned to decide the application of the revisionist father of the victim under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in accordance will law and pass a reasoned order thereon.
10. With the aforesaid observation, this application is allowed at the stage of admission itself.