AJAY KHANDELWALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 21.7.2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide which he was summoned as accused without any basis and proceeding pn the erroneous premise that the complainant has disclosed a triable case against him. It is pertinent to mention that the learned MM ordered the police for investigation into the allegations of complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C vesting the M.M with the power to order for such an investigation.

(2.) .I am afraid after having failed to act upon the report of the Investigating Officer received by Metropolitan Magistrate by way of investigation ordered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was precluded from acting upon the simplicitor allegations of the complainant made in the complaint which according to him at the first instance required investigation by the police. It was in the fitness of things tp allow the application of the complainant for further investigation into the matter by the Investigating Officer which was declined by learned MM . If the material was sufficient before the learned MM for summoning the petitioner as contained in the complaint there was no point in ordering further investigation by the Investigating Officer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Once having been equipped with the final report, it was incumbent upon the learned MM to deal with the conclusion of the report instead of dismissing the same brusquely.

(3.) . In the given facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside with direction to the Investigating Officer to further investigate the matter by way of allowing the application of the complainant and submit the report before the learned M.M who shall redecide the question of summoning the petitioner after evaluating and discussing the same.