3. From the closure report dated 22.02.2021, it is seen that the closure report has been sent through the registered post to the complainant, the father of the petitioner on 17.12.2020 which cannot be so. The order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., has been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai on 22.01.2021 and the same has been despatched on 23.01.2021. This Court was not in approval in the manner in which the orders passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., since it is not proper and it is in printed form which ex-facio reflects non application of mind by the learned Magistrate while passing the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., by directing the respondent Police to expedite the enquiry based on the complaint given by the complainant and comply the same within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.
4. This Court received the report in Dis.No.642/2021, dated 18.06.2021 from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai. From the report, it is seen that there have been several such orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai appeared in person and on enquiry, he submitted that it was due to work pressure, the orders were passed unintentionally. This Court reluctantly accepts the explanation of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai is advised not to pass any such order in future and further to follow the directions of the the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Sakiri Vasu Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 440”, wherein the powers of the learned Magistrates under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., have been enunciated and to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Priyanka Srivastava and another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 287”.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyankaa Srivastava (cited above) taking into consideration the manner in which the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to be passed, had clearly held “after going through the documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted”.
6. The extract of the above guidelines is reproduced to remind the learned Magistrate to follow the same, since this Court had come across several orders, not only of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai but also several Magistrates without knowing the import and difference between Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and Section 202 Cr.P.C., passed orders. It is deplorable to see such orders, despite the Hon’ble Apex Court giving directions to circulate the Judgment among the learned Magistrates so that they can be more vigilant and diligent while exercising the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is followed in breach. In future this Court hopes no such mechanical orders would be passed.
PARTY: Aarthi Versus The Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai – Crl.O.P.No. 10031 of 2021 – 30.06.2021 – THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/592616
Aarthi vs. The S.P Thiruvannamalai
