Final Order 1

Order Details: copy of Order
Pdf Text: 1
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT1, IN C.C. NO. 717/M/2023
Perused the complaint and heard Learned Counsel for
complainant. It is contention of the complainant that, the relation
between complainant and respondent No. 1, as husband and wife,
respectively was acrimonious after their marriage. The criminal
proceeding was initiated by respondent No. 1 at Chandrapur, wherein
the complainant and his relatives got anticipatory bail. It is contention
of complainant that, respondents try to harass complainant and also
threatened him with the demand of money for divorce. It is categorical
contention of the complainant that, the respondents have strong
political connections and because of that, threatened complainant with
dire consequences. It is contention of the complainant that, he has
propounded the written complaint to the police station Pantnagar
however, police has not taken any cognizance and therefore,
complainant has no other option than to knock the door of this Court.
2. Through this complaint, the complainant intended for
issuance of directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation.
3. According to complainant, he has tendered written
complaint Pantnagar Police Station on 06.03.2023 and same was
received by police on 10.03.2023, however, no cognizance has been
taken by the police, though the offence revealed cognizance offence. It
is contention of the complainant that, when the offence revealed as a
cognizable offence, then police has no other option than to start inquiry
or investigation forthwith. But in this case inspite of receipt of
complaint police has not taken the cognizance. It is pertinent to note
-- 1 of 2 --
2
that, subSection (3) of Section 154 speaks about when the police
officer of the concerned police station refused or failed to record the
information referred to in subSection (1), then the aggrieved person
needs to sent the information to the Superintendent of Police, if the
offence is cognizable. In the instant matter, the complainant ought to
have send the information to the Superintendent of Police concerned, in
the light of fact that, according to complainant, it was cognizable
offence committed in the jurisdiction of Pantnagar Police Station. It is
needless to say that, in the instant matter, complainant has not sent the
information to the Superintendent of Police and therefore, the
mandatory compliance of subSection (3) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. has
not been done. The compliance of subSection (3) that is sending the
cognizable information to the Superintendent of Police is sinequanon,
in the light of fact that, police station refused to record the information
under subSection (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C.. In absence of their
compliance complainant is not entitled any relief from this Court. Thus,
I found no substance in this complaint and it needs to be rejected by
passing following order ;
ORDER
Complaint is rejected.
(V. K. Umale)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 15.07.2023 50th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --