1
wp333.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No.333 of 2016
Abdul Kuddus s/o Abdul Hamid,
Aged about 70 years,
Occupation - Retd. H.M.,
R/o Bhadhari Pura, Mangrulpir,
Tah. Mangrulpir, Distt. Washim. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O., Mangrulpir,
Distt. Washim.
2. Mohd. Matin Mohd. Amin,
R/o Madar Takiya,
Mangrulpir,
Tah. Mangrulpir,
Distt. Washim.
3. Abdul Khalik s/o Sher Mohd,
R/o Diwanpura, Mangrulpir,
Tah. Mangrulpir,
Distt. Wahsim. ...Respondents
Shri J.R. Kidilay, Advocate for Petitioner.
Smt. Geeta Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for
Respondent No.1.
Shri R.D. Karode, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:53:12 :::
2
wp333.16.odt
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
th Dated : 11 October, 2017 Oral Judgment :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. In Regular Criminal Case No.9 of 2015 instituted on a complaint filed under Section 200 read with Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in respect of the offences under Sections 409, 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471(a) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangrulpir directed conducting of investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No.01 of 2015 preferred against this order is dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangrulpir on 21-1-2016. Hence this petition by the person accused of the said offences.
3. The contention of Shri Kidilay, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the decision of the ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:53:12 ::: 3 wp333.16.odt Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2015 ALL SCR 1592, and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 244, submits that unless it is alleged and demonstrated that the complainant had approached the police authorities under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate was not competent to order an investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. According to him, even otherwise there is no case made out for directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate even if it may be permissible for him in the exceptional circumstances.
4. The law laid down by the Apex Court and by the Full Bench of this Court in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be disputed. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659, relied ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:53:12 ::: 4 wp333.16.odt upon by Shri Karode, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant, lays down the options for the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 190(1) of Cr.P.C. in para 12 of the decision. Shri Karode has also relied upon the following decisions :
1. 2008 Cri.L.J. 1986 -
Ravendra alias Hawaldar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
2. 2011(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 605 -
Mona Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad through its Registrar and others.
3. AIR 2011 SC (Criminal) 1174 -
Srinivas Gundluri & Ors. v. SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation & Ors.
4. 2012(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 267 -
Bhavrabai Parashramji Atal v. Sanjay Ramchandra Gandhewar & Anr.
5. 2014(3) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 152 -
Savitrabai Sureshchandra Khatod (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:53:12 ::: 5 wp333.16.odt
5. It is not in dispute that the complaint is under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the relief claimed in the complaint is to punish the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. It is not the case where the complainant has prayed for an investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. However, while dealing with the complaint under Section 200 read with Section 190(1) of Cr.P.C., it is permissible for the Magistrate to direct an investigation under Section 156(3), and for that purpose, he is not bound to see that there is no complaint under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. made to the police authorities. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the decisions in Priyanka and Panchabhai's cases, cited supra, is, therefore, rejected.
6. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the proceedings undertaken by the Collector and the Education Officer and it is urged that the report submitted has not been taken into consideration by the Magistrate, as ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:53:12 ::: 6 wp333.16.odt there was failure to provide an opportunity to the petitioner. The contention cannot be accepted, for the reason that the order of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is a reasoned order, based on the relevant considerations. It was not necessary for him to hear the petitioner before passing an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. In view of above, I do not find any substance in the petition. The same is dismissed.
8. Rule stands discharged. No costs.
9. The learned Magistrate to proceed further in the matter expeditiously.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:53:12 :::