HILTOP CAPFIN PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition invokes inherent jurisdiction of the Court under section 482, Cr. P.C. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 1.7.2005 by which he declined a revision filed. The Trial Court i.e. the Metropolitan Magistrate had refused to issue directions under section 156 (3). Cr. P.C. and also precluded the petitioner from leading any evidence in support of the complaint.

(2.) The petitioner had alleged commission of offences under sections 506 read with section 468. I.P.C. According to it some of its employees were intimidated with abusive language by the respondent-accused and in addition the latter had fabricated/ forged certain reports. On these allegations the complainant-petitioner sought to lodge an F.I.R.; thereafter he moved the Magistrate who declined the request even while precluding the option of leading evidence in the matter as complaint under section 200 and allowing the petitioner to proceed further. By a detailed order. the Magistrate considered the effect of sections 506 and 468, I.P.C. and also the ingredients of the offence.

(3.) Mr. Aggarwal, learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of. the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another, 2006 (1) JCC 189 : (2006) 1 SCC 627 : 2006 (38) AIC 70 (SC) : 2006 (54) ACC 530 and Mamhat Vs. State of U.P., 2007 Crl RJ 152 to say that the nature of allegations required to be made in applications under section 156 (3) are necessarily brief and the criminal law machinery is deemed to have been set into motion of the offence alleged is merely mentioned. It was submitted that like in the case of grave and serious offences. if the complaint is brought to the notice of the Court or to the police authorities that itself would be deemed sufficient for the legal machinery to take over.