MUKUND BALVIRSINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The applicant is invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioning the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on his application whereby his request for issuing a direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been turned down.

(3.) The applicant filed the proceeding before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with the allegations that one Abhimanyu Arjun Patil had sent him e-mails containing threats to his life. It was also communicated in these e-mails that even similar e-mails were sent to couple of advocates threatening them of dire consequences if they supported the applicant who was facing a prosecution. He further alleged that when he approached the police as is required under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure they refused to take cognizance and therefore as is laid down in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and other; (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, he approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking a direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the allegations would clearly make out the offences punishable under Section 109, 120B, 190, 506, 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.