HEMANT KARMALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service.

(2.) The above petitions are taken up together for hearing as the Counsel appearing for the respective parties point out that the points involved in all the petitions are common and are in connection with the same complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the respondent No. 1 jointly against all the petitioners in the above petitions on 8/ 2/2006 stating inter alia that they are Mining Lessees of a mine known as "Cuddegalivoril Soddo" and that the petitioners had hatched a conspiracy and fraudulently obtained an order dated 21/11/2005 from the Joint Secretary of Mines, permitting mining operations in respect of the said mining concession. It is further the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 2 filed an application bearing No. 26/2006/D praying for a direction to the respondent No. 1 to register the complaint and investigate the same. It is further their case that by Order dated 4/10/2006 the learned Magistrate allowed the application and directed the respondent No. 1 to register the F.I.R. in pursuance of the said complaint which was registered bearing CR No. 296/2006 under sections 415, 420, 463, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as against all the petitioners. It is further the contention of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 filed a Final Report No. 118/2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Margao seeking an order to grant "A" Summary on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence produced against the petitioners. The objections were filed by the respondent No. 2 to the said application and the respondent No. 2 sought further investigation in respect of the said F.I.R. The learned Magistrate by order dated 10/11/2010 granted "A" Summary in respect of Final Report No. 118/2009 and rejected the objections of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 challenged the said order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 20/2011 which came to be allowed by order dated 23/ 7/2012 whereby the learned Sessions Judge directed the respondent No. 3 to make further investigations in the matter. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have preferred the above writ petition.