CASE TITLE:
Ravindar Lal Airi v. S. Shalu Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
24 January 2023
JUDGE(S):
Justice Jasmeet Singh
SUBJECT
The learned High Court of Delhi in the present case reiterated that a Magistrate should not pass an order u/s 156(3) mechanically, a judicial application of mind to the facts is required before any such order. The learned Court also held that an order u/s 156(3) allowing or disallowing a registration of FIR is the one that affects the fundamental right and freedom of the accused, as such it can not be considered to be an interlocutory order against which a revision petition can not be filed.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- The petitioner filed an application u/s 156(3) CrPC before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The ACMM disregarded the Action Taken Report and directed registration of FIR.
- The respondent , aggrieved by the above order moved the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge once an ATR states that no cognizable offense has been made out and the matter is civil in nature, the ACMM can not go about taking an opposite view of the matter without stating appropriate reasons.
- The Sessions Court thus set aside the order passed by ACMM.
- This order of the Sessions Court has been challenged before the present Court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order containing a direction to register an FIR is an interlocutory order and as such a revision u/s 397 r/w section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code would not lie.
LEGAL ISSUE
- Whether an order u/s 156(3) allowing or disallowing registration of an FIR is an interlocutory order?
- What is the extent of the discretion of the Magistrate while acting u/s 156(3)?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The learned Court while refusing to accept the view advanced by the learned counsel, observed the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Nishu Wadia v. Sidharth Wadhwa & Ors [W.P. (CRL) 1253/2016] wherein it was held that ‘ an order dismissing or allowing an application u/s 156 is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable.’
- The Court opined that since registration of FIR has a bearing on the fundamental right and freedom of the accused, its registration can not be said to be an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable as the accused possesses a valuable right to be heard.
- The Court further noted that in Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel v. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai [1998 (1) CRIMES 351], it was advised that the MM should take an action u/s 156(3) mechanically. A resort u/s 156(3) is to be taken only when the MM is convinced that assistance of police is required and also that but for an action u/s 156(3), the complainant would not be able to collect and produce evidence in support of his accusations.
CONCLUSION
The light of the above observations made, the learned Court concluded that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is right. The Court held that the order of the Magistrate does not show an application of mind as to why he/she adopted a view different than the one stated in Action Taken Report. Reasons for such an action ought to have been stated by the MM.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
