ORDER
S.K. Phaujdar, J.
1. The matter was heard yesterday.
2. The present application is directed against an order dated 2-7-1998 passed by the II Addl. C.J.M., at Varanasi in Crime No. C-13/98 relating to P. S. Badagaon, Varanasi,
2-A. An application was filed before the Addl. J.M. by one Rajesh Kumar Mishra against the present applicant and others for action under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. The Magistrate recorded an order in the following language :
Seen contents and record.
ORDER
S.O. Baragaon to register and investigate the case and report.
3. It was argued that the Magistrate had no authority to call for a report and that would amount to interference in investigation. It was further argued that when it was an allegation of misuse of authority and acts of dishonesty against public servant of any status, a suitable preliminary enquiry should have been made before registering a case. It was also submitted that being aggrieved by certain orders recorded by the authorities, that the complainant moved a writ petition and the same was finally withdrawn and thereafter when the authorities proceeded according to law the present case has been initiated on false allegations.
4. Reliance was placed on certain case laws. The learned counsel placed before me the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal as reported in 1991 (28) Alld Cri C 111 : AIR 1992 SC 604. The case law does not relate to exercise of powers under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. but in interpreting Section 157, Cr. P.C, it was observed that when there is a complaint against a public servant for misuse of authority and acts of dishonesty, a suitable preliminary enquiry must be made before registering complaint and making full investigation therein. This very case law, however, states that at the stage of registration of a crime on the basis of information, the Police Officer cannot make an enquiry as to whether the information is reliable and genuine. The Police Officer, it was held, cannot refuse to register a case on such ground, rather he was statutorily obliged to register a case and to enter the substance in a prescribed form.
5. Reference was also made to a decision of the Allahabad High Court recorded by an Hon’ble single Judge in the case of Raj Kumar Agrawal v. State of U.P. as reported in 1995 (32) All Cri C 253. It was in relation to exercise of powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in a matter pending investigation and the Court had directed that the Investigating Officer was to apply his mind to She materials received during investigation and then to decide if there was absolute necessity of arrest.
6. The third case placed before me is a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat as reported in 1998 Cri LJ 463. It was a case where the complaint filed before the Magistrate should have been investigated by the Court itself and it was held that “passing the buck” to the police for doing the needful was improper and amounted to abdication and dereliction of duty. It was an order whereby the Magistrate, upon receipt of the complaint, had directed an enquiry to be made by the Police and to submit a report.
7. In the present case, however, the Magistrate was informed about a cognizable offence as complaint was made of forgery of papers. The nature of allegations suggested that the details could be brought to light by an investigation only and as such it was not “passing of the buck” by the Magistrate to the Police. The Magistrate clearly directed registration of a case and investigation. While writing the order the Magistrate had also recorded “and report”. These words may not be given undue importance as the Magistrate simply wanted to be aware of the developments and nothing more. It is the duty of the Police Officer to intimate the registration of an FIR and to intimate the proceedings of investigation in case any accused is arrested and forwarded to Court. Thus, the very direction for reporting the progress of investigation may not, by itself, vitiate the direction for registration of a case or an investigation. This order under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. may not, therefore, be interfered with under Section 482, Cr. P.C. So far the other prayer for stay of arrest of the applicant in the case is concerned, it will be entering into the merits of the case and, as far the present norm followed by this High Court, the powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. may not be exercised in any manner so as to interfere with the investigation. So far as the prayer for stay of arrest or for any other prayer of the like nature, it will be open for the petitioner to move the writ Court.
8. The present application stands disposed of with the above observations.