Champaklal Ganeshmal Shah v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

1/2 wp3396.15.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3396 OF 2015 Shri Champaklal Ganeshmal Shah ...

Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & anr.

...

Respondents Mr. S.G. Rajput for the petitioner.

Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the State.

CORAM :

NARESH H. PATIL AND A.M. BADAR, JJ.

12th April, 2016.

P.C.

The petitioner prays for direction to police to take cognizance of complaint filed by him on 21st February, 2015. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate inviting orders under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.. By an order dated 23rd April, 2015 the Magistrate passed following order:

"

On going through the record and on being heard, considering the allegations and the documents filed on record, it appears that before directing the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. the examination of the

2/2 wp3396.15.sxw complainant is desirable and if required then the matter can be send under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the complainant is directed to remain present on next date for verification."

2.

It is clear from the order passed by the Magistrate that instead of adopting the procedure under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate decided to adopt the procedure enunciated under the provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

3.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner had invited orders under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deviate from the provisions under which application is made by the petitioner and invoke powers under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 4.

We do not find any illegality in the Magistrate resorting to jurisdiction conferred under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. even in case when the petitioner prays for order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. This issue is settled by judgment of Division Bench in the case of Shyam Sunder Radhe Shyam Agarwal v/s. State of Maharashtra {2013 (2) BCR 736}.

5.

There is no case made out to interfere at this stage. The petition is dismissed.

(A.M. BADAR, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) L.S. Panjwani, P.S.