Namdeo S/O Laxman Karkare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 997 Bom

                                                    Cri.W.P.No.1137/16
                                      1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
              APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1137 OF 2016

          Namdeo s/o. Laxman Karkare,
          Age 65 years, Occu. Religious work,
          R/o. Bishop House, H.No.5-8-336,
          Chapel Road, Hyderabad.           ....Petitioner.

                  Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through its Secretary,
          Home Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

 2.       The Police Inspector,
          Udgir Rural Police Station,
          Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.

 3.       Prelata Amrut Suryawanshi,
          Age Major, Occu. Nil.,
          R/o. Janwada Road, Nawadgiri,
          Bidar, Karnataka.                 ....Respondents.



 Mr. V.J. Dixit and Mr. R.B. Raghuwanshi, Senior Counsels i/b. Mr.
 A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner.
 Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
 Mr. B.R. Warma h/f. Mr. Ujjwal Agrawal, Advocate for respondent
 No. 3.
                                   CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : March 23, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,

heard both the sides for final disposal.

Cri.W.P.No.1137/16

2) The petition is filed to challenge the order made by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (J.M.F.C.) Udgir in 'B'

Summary Report filed in C.R. No. 89/2015 registered in Udgir

Rural Police Station. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioner

argued the matter on limited point, the jurisdiction of the

Magistrate to give direction to Local Crime Branch (L.C.B.). Other

side is heard on it.

3) The learned Senior Counsel for petitioner took this

Court through the provision of section 156 of Criminal Procedure

Code (Cr.P.C.). The provision shows that the Magistrate has

power to give direction only to concerned police station, having

jurisdiction over the offence to make investigation of the case by

exercising such power. The learned Senior Counsel placed

reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case

reported as AIR 2015 SC 3556 [Chandra Babu @ Moses Vs.

State through Inspector of Police and ors.]. The learned

counsel for respondent, original complainant submitted that

L.C.B. has jurisdiction over the entire district and so, the

Magistrate has not committed any error in exercising the power

in view of the wording of provision of section 156 of Cr.P.C. There

is no scope to infer that the Magistrate can give direction to any

Cri.W.P.No.1137/16

other agency than the police station mention in this section.

There is certainly power with the Superior Officers like

Superintendent of Police or Inspector General to give the

investigation to other agency in respect of the crime registered

in particular police station. But, after giving direction by the

Magistrate to register the crime, nothing is left in the hands of

the Magistrate and further step can be taken only by the

Superior Officer like Superintendent of Police. In view of these

circumstances, this Court holds that interference is warranted in

the order made by the J.M.F.C. and the order needs to be

modified to make it in accordance with the provision of section

156 of Cr.P.C.

4) In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Direction

given by the Magistrate is to read as direction given to Udgir

Rural Police Station. All the points are kept open.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

ssc/