1 2025:CGHC:2757-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 101 of 2025 Shiv Prasad Meena S/o Late Gokul Ram Meena Aged About 46 Years R/o C/o Dynamic Enterprises 65, Globas Township Near Indralok Nagal, Ratlam (M.P.) (Note- In the order of JMFC name of Shiv Prasad Meena id mentioned as SP Meena) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station-Mohan Nagar, Durg, (C.G.) 2 - Man Singh S/o Shatrughan Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 262, Sinha Bada, Village Nawagaon, Tehsil- Dhamdha, P.S.- Borai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Dr.Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.01.2025 1. Heard Dr.Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.01.16 18:33:40 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:- “In view of the above submission and on the basis of facts of the case and documents annexed therewith, the Applicant most respectfully prays before the Hon’ble Court to be please to quash the order dated 21.09.2023 of the lrd.JMFC, Durg (Annexure A/1) ordering registration of FIR after investigation in a proceeding before them on complaint of the Respondent no.2 u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.1973, in the interest of justice. ” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has exceeded its authority in directing the police to register FIR after the investigation. On the application under Section 156(3) CrPC of respondent No.2, the Magistrate has not applied its mind and has directly asked the police to register FIR after investigation. He further submits that the Magistrate is empowered under Section 156(3) CrPC to order an investigation into the allegations contained in the complaint and not to register an FIR after investigation. Learned Magistrate has not considered in its order that power under Section 156(3) CrPC should be used sparingly when there is something unusual and extra ordinary like miscarriage of justice, as in this case the Railway Police had already investigated the matter and reported that there was no forgery committed by the petitioner of making forged signature. He also submits that there is no proof that the petitioner has made forged signature of the complainant / respondent No. 2. The complainant / 3 respondent No. 2 along with other worker entered into a settlement with Firm of the petitioner on 30.05.2019 before the Conciliation Officer under ID Act, 1947 and the Regional Lobour Commissioner (C) Raipur that he will never claim in any forum / court in future in respect of issue of settlement, but this fact has not been considered by learned Magistrate. The petitioner has complied with all the terms of this memorandum of Settlement, hence to further contention is required to be considered/entertained. There is delay of 6 years in filing the complaint by respondent No. 2. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P. and another reported in (2001) 2 SCC 628, in which the Supreme Court has held that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In the matter the police has already been investigated that there is no offence been committed by the Petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1/State supports the order of learned Magistrate to the extent of direction for registration of FIR, but submitted that the direction to submit final report within three months after investigation is incorrect. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 6. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 15.01.2025 the 4 Superintendent of Police, Durg has filed his personal affidavit which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “1. That, I am posted as Superintendent of Police, Durg District Durg (CG) and as such am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That, I am submitting this affidavit in humble compliance of the order dated 15/01/2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court. 3. At the outset I tender my unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court. I have every regard and respect to the authority, jurisdiction and powers of this Hon'ble Court. I do not even think to flout with the orders/directions and or warrants issued by this Hon'ble Court. 4. It is humbly submitted that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Durg dated 21/09/2023 was received by the Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg to register FIR against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s 420, 468, 461 & 34 of 1.P.C and it was further directed that after completion of investigation the charge-sheet be filed within 3 months before the competent Court. 5. That, in compliance of the aforesaid order the deponent sought the explanation from the SHO, Police Station Mohan Nagar Durg (CG) in which it was found that the office of Dyanamic Enterprises Company was situated at Malviya Nagar Chowk Durg which is falls under Mohan Nagar. Durg. It was alleged by the respondent no. 2 that with the connivance of Railway Department and after making forged signature of workers on blank paper it was shown that wages has been paid and according to the complaint also 5 the wages was drawn by the firms through Railway Department so the jurisdiction about the inquiry of the complaint was fall in the Government Railway police/Railway Protection Force, Raipur. 6. It is humbly submitted that, although Railway Station Durg falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station Mohan Nagar but the alleged offence was committed in the Railway Station Durg so jurisdiction of inquiry of the alleged offence falls under the Government Railway Police (GRP) for taking guidance from the learned JMFC. A letter dated 27/11/2024 was written to the learned JMFC Durg. Copy of the letter dated 27/11/2024 is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/1. 7. It is submitted that during the investigation the statements of Maan Singh, Meet Kumar Nishad & Meharban Singh was separately recorded in which they had stated that all the allegations leveled by the petitioner is false and baseless. It was also found that earlier same complaint was also inquired by the Superintendent of Police (Rail) Raipur and in that inquiry the complaint was found purely civil in nature but suppressing this important fact respondent no. 2 filed complaint U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Durg. 8. Apart from that looking to the fact that one WP(L) No. 59/2021 was also pending before the Hon'ble High Court in which the Hon'ble High Court had passed an order dated 18/01/2024 which is as under:- "considering this aspect of the matter, the impugned order dated 17/05/2022 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing". 9. It was also found that upon further instruction was sought 6 by the SHO Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg in light of the above-said facts which was revealed during investigation from the learned JMFC Durg on 05/11/2024. Copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 18/01/2024 alongwith letter dated 05/11/2024 are annexed collectively herewith as ANNEXURE R/2. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also communicated the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 02/02/2024. Copy of the communication dated 02/02/2024 is being annexed as ANNEXURE R/3. 11. It is also pertinent to mention here that according to the Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class ought to have directed the concerned police station to register an FIR and after completion of usual investigation the final report U/s 173 of Cr.P.C. be filed within stipulated time but in the present case vide Annexure A/1 the learned Magistrate had directed to file charge-sheet before the Court which is contrary to the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 12. That, I tender my unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court for the action / effort which was being done under a bonafide belief and I hereby undertake and assure this Hon'ble Court that, I shall be very careful and vigilant in future in making strict and timely compliance of the orders and directions passed by this Hon'ble Court from time to time. 13. That, the police services of the State is for taking care of all the citizen of State and investigate the each complaint in a fair and impartial manner and are duty bound to maintain the law and order of the State.” 7. From perusal of the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, 7 Durg, it transpires that the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station, who was directed by learned Magistrate to register an FIR against the accused persons had moved some application pointing out the conduct of the complainant and because of that, he did not register an FIR. 8. The explanation given by the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station is clear disobedience of the order of the Court of Magistrate, which cannot be appreciated, this Court wished to take action against the SHO, but learned State Counsel prayed that the order with respect to the same be not passed giving one opportunity to comply with the order of the Magistrate for registering the FIR, hence, we drop the said idea with a strict warning to the SHO concerned not to repeat the said act and conduct in near future, but the SP concerned is directed to ensure that the order of learned Magistrate is complied with in its letter and spirit within a week from today and if the petitioner has any grievance of the same, he can take recourse to law. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order which has been passed by learned Magistrate for submitting a police report within a period of three months does not appears to be correct approach of the Magistrate as FIR has to be registered and it will be prerogative of the investigating officer to conclude the investigation and submit a police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC (Now Section 193(3) of the BNNS) before the Magistrate concerned in accordance with law, hence, the said part of the 8 impugned order is set aside. 10. With the aforesaid observation / direction, the present petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu