Application filed by the petitioner under Section 156 (3) of the Code has been rejected and the petitioner has been directed to examine his witnesses as per the provision of Section 200 and 202 of the Code.
It is settled legal position that once the Magistrate has come to the conclusion that allegations made in the complaint do not prima facie make out offence then the Magistrate was right in rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code and he is also right in fixing the case for recording the statement of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. It is also well established principle of law that order under Section 156 (3) of the Code could not be passed in a mechanical manner. There has to be due application of mind. Once the Magistrate has applied his mind and if he comes to the conclusion that prima facie the applicant has failed to make out a case for cognizable offence warranting issuance of an order under Section 156 (3) of the Code then the Magistrate is right in rejecting the application, if otherwise does not obligatory on the Magistrate to issue an order under Section 156 (3) of the Code only on the basis of averments made in the complaint.
In the present case, the Magistrate was of the view that the allegations made in the complaint do not prima facie make out a cognizable offence against the respondents/accused. In such a situation, only course of action available to the Magistrate is to proceed further with the complaint and decide the question of issuance of summons after examination of complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code.[Para No.8]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj Rajoriya
Vs.
Ram Singh Imle
Decided on 11/05/2020