[2025:JHHC:24382] 1 Cr. M.P. No.4185 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4185 of 2019 ------ Asha Devi, aged about 62 years, W/o Ram Naresh Prasad, residing at Barmasia (Near Football Ground), P.O. & P.S.- Dhansar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sarwamangla Prasad, W/o Sri Harideo Prasad, residing at Sarwamangala Nursing Home, Hirak Point, Nag Nagar, Memko More, P.O. & P.S.- Barwadda, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has been served validly upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No.330 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the criminal revision and also to quash [2025:JHHC:24382] 2 Cr. M.P. No.4185 of 2019 the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.2873 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad barely by filling up the blank spaces of a pre-typed format, referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation and on the basis of same, Dhanbad P.S. Case No.329 of 2019 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sukar Koeri @ Budhan Koeri @ Budhan Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in Cr.M.P. No. 406 of 2018, dated 11th June, 2025 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Kumar & Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Another reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705, para-11 which reads as under:- “11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case [(2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation.” (Emphasis supplied) [2025:JHHC:24382] 3 Cr. M.P. No.4185 of 2019 and submits that the settled principle of law is that in the order by which a Magistrate exercises the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the mere statement that the Magistrate has gone through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, as such will not be sufficient but the Magistrate must mention in the order concerned, as to what weighed with the Magistrate, to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though a detailed expression of his view is neither required nor warranted. It is next submitted that the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Kumar & Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Another (supra) has also been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2015) 6 SCC 439 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat (supra) has also been relied upon in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2001) 2 SCC 628, submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India therein has held that any judicial magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Addl.P.P. next relies upon the [2025:JHHC:24382] 4 Cr. M.P. No.4185 of 2019 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and submits that in para-120 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation. It is further submitted that since the contents of the written complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence and the FIR has been registered, hence, there is no justification for allowing the prayer of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is a distinction between the registration of an FIR by the Officer-in-Charge of police station upon receiving the information about commission of cognizable offence and upon a complaint being referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of FIR; as when a complaint is referred under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Officer-in-Charge of the police station is duty bound to get the FIR registered even if in the personal opinion of the police officer, no cognizable offence is made out because such an opinion is formed by the Magistrate in its act of referring the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate concerned, in this respect, is superior to the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. [2025:JHHC:24382] 5 Cr. M.P. No.4185 of 2019 7. As already discussed above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Kumar & Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Another (supra) has in no uncertain manner reiterated the settled principle of law that the Magistrate exercising the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure must mention in the order concerned as to what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has just filled up a printed form and sent the complaint to the Dhanbad police station to institute a case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to investigate the case. After going through the impugned order, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the same has been passed without mentioning as to what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the said order dated 18.09.2019 be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.2873 of 2019, is quashed and set aside. 10. So far as the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No.330 of 2019 is concerned, perusal of the record reveals that the same has not been decided on merit of the case rather the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the same being not maintainable. [2025:JHHC:24382] 6 Cr. M.P. No.4185 of 2019 11. The case is remanded to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad or its successor court which may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. 13. In view of the disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 11.02.2020 is vacated. 14. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th of August, 2025 AFR/ Saroj