[2026:RJ-JP:1781] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 83/2021 Ghasi Lal Gautam S/o Lt. Shri Surajmal, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Gram Leevali Police Thana Bamanwas Distt. Sawai Madhopur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Smt. Pratigya @ Gaura @ Pinki W/o Vishnu Kumar D/o Girraj Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Shankar Bihar Colony, Murlipura Scheme P.S. Murlipura Jaipur. 3. Vikram @ Sitaram S/o Namalum, Aged 38 Yrs, R/o P.S. Harmada Ke Pass, Sikar Road, Jaipur. 4. Girraj Prasad S/o Namalum, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Shankar Bihar Colony, Murlipura Scheme, P.s. Murlipura, Jaipur Presently Pujari, Laxminarayan Mandir Tatkaleshwar Mahadev, Dadi Ka Phatak Ke Pass Jaipur. 5. Smt. Chandrakanta W/o Girraj Prasad, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Shankar Bihar Colony, Murlipura Scheme, P.s. Murlipura, Jaipur Presently Pujari, Laxminarayan Mandir Tatkaleshwar Mahadev, Dadi Ka Phatak Ke Pass Jaipur. 6. Kanhaya Lal S/o Girraj Prasad, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Shankar Bihar Colony, Murlipura Scheme, P.s. Murlipura, Jaipur Presently Pujari, Laxminarayan Mandir Tatkaleshwar Mahadev, Dadi Ka Phatak Ke Pass Jaipur. 7. Janu Sharma S/o Girraj Prasad, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Shankar Bihar Colony, Murlipura Scheme, P.s. Murlipura, Jaipur Presently Pujari, Laxminarayan Mandir Tatkaleshwar Mahadev, Dadi Ka Phatak Ke Pass Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Krishan Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, Public Prosecutor. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order [2026:RJ-JP:1781] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-83/2021] 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 12/01/2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 12/01/2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment 4. Date of pronouncement 16/ 01/2026 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, in Criminal Case No. 25/2020, titled Ghasilal Gautam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., whereby the petitioner’s complaint for offence under Sections 147, 302, 307, 364, 365, 384, 386, 389 and 120-B of IPC was not sent for under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and kept for enquiry/investigation under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has also questioned the Revisional Court’s order dated 03.12.2020, by which Additional Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metro-II, District Jaipur, dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition as not maintainable, being an interlocutory order passed by the Magistrate. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate needed to send the complaint alleging commission of a cognizable offence under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registering the F.I.R. However, instead of registering a complaint, the Magistrate kept the complaint pending for recording a statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. It is argued that the Magistrate has no option but to send the complaint for registering the FIR under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. If from the perusal of the complaint, it appears that some cognizable offence has been committed. [2026:RJ-JP:1781] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-83/2021] 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., 2014 CRI. L.J. 470. It is also contended that the concerned Revisional Court also committed a mistake in treating the order of keeping the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. as interlocutory. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of Jagannath Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2014 Allahabad, 214. 4. Contrarily, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the misc. petition and contended that the discretion lies with the Magistrate, whether to send the complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. or to enquire and proceed under provisions of Sections 200 to 204 of Cr.P.C. It is also contended that the Revisional Court rightly dismissed the petitioner’s revision, as the order is interlocutory and, being against an interlocutory order, revision does not lie. The learned Public Prosecutor has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in HDFC Securities Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2017) 1 SCC 640. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. The factual matrix of the case is undisputed. The petitioner submitted a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur Metro-II, Jaipur, alleging offences under Sections 147, 302, 307, 364, 365, 384, 386, 389 and 120-B of the IPC, with a prayer to register the F.I.R. under the aforesaid sections. By way of impugned order dated 04.09.2020, the Magistrate, instead of sending the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., kept it for enquiry under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the [2026:RJ-JP:1781] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-83/2021] case of Madhao & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013 5 SCC 615, has observed as under:- “When a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognisance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence itself.” 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sadiq B. Hanchinmani Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., 2025 INSC 1282, reiterated the aforesaid legal provision. In light of the aforesaid judgments, it is no longer res integra that the submission of the complaint disclosing a cognizable offence before the Magistrate for registration of the F.I.R. is a discretion vested in the Magistrate. In the present case, the Magistrate, after considering the contents of the complaint, passed the impugned order, keeping the complaint for enquiry and further proceedings under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court does not find that the order of the Magistrate is against the provisions of the law or that the Magistrate has not applied its mind. [2026:RJ-JP:1781] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-83/2021] 8. As far as maintainability of the revision petition against the impugned order before the Court of Sessions is concerned, this Court does not want to go into the question, as the order of the Magistrate refusing to send the complaint for registering the FIR is justified. 9. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the criminal misc. petition being devoid of merit, hence, dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86 46