DAYANAND RAWANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought challenging the entire proceeding pending before the Court of JMFC Dharmjaigarh as Criminal Case No.451/2011 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Dayanand Rawani) praying for issuance of writ of certiorary.

(2.) It is submitted that while entertaining the application filed by respondent No.4 filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and passing orders for initiation of trial against the applicant/defendant disregard has been made to the provisions of law and also the legal principles present. The application that was filed by the respondent No.4 on 04-02-2008 before the Court below under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was neither signed by respondent No.4 nor by his counsel, even then the application was entertained, but the same was dismissed by the order dated 20-02-2008. The order dated 20-02-2008 was challenged in revision before the Court of Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.20/2008 which was decided on 24-03-2009. The applicant had appeared on summons in that revision petition, the revision was allowed and the order dated 20-02-2008 was set aside, but a direction was also given to the applicant to remain present before the trial Court on 02-04-2009, which was contrary to law for the reason that there is no requirement for any person accused in complaint or application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to be present before a Court before cognizance is taken and before process is issued against him. Therefore, these are serious discrepancies which can be observed. In the subsequent proceeding the learned trial Court has ordered the concerned police station for registration of the FIR against the petitioner, thereafter the case was investigated and the charge sheet was fled against the petitioner and the petitioner is now being prosecuted in the same case.

(3.) It is submitted that grave negligence has been committed by the trial Court by proceeding on the application filed by the respondent No.4 which was not at all signed and also not supported with affidavit. Therefore, it was a total disregard to the principle that has been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2015 6 SCC 287 in which it was made a precondition that an application under Section 156(3) should be supported with an affidavit. Hence, these are serious discrepancy present in the proceeding that are initiated against the petitioner and the whole proceeding against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.