AMIT JOSHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in an application filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and consequent registration of FIR on 8-5- 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 177 of the IPC.

(2.) Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that in a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC filed by respondent No.3 against the officer of BALCO with regard to certain recruitment conducted by BALCO alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 177 of the IPC, the learned Magistrate on 29-10-2013 directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Balco Nagar to investigate the matter and if offence is found to have been committed, then to proceed further and submit final report. He would further submit that on 6-5-2014, Police Station Balco Nagar submitted final report that on detailed investigation, no cognizable offence was found to have been committed by the petitioner, yet the learned Magistrate on the request of the complainant, sought information from the Station House Officer, whether he has lodged written FIR in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrC /in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 and consequently, FIR was registered on 8- 5-2014 by Police Station Balco Nagar for the aforesaid offences which is ex facie illegal and bad in law in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287.

(3.) Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned State counsel, opposes the petition and supports the impugned order.