SACHIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to challenge the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ardhapur in Misc. Criminal Application No.63 of 2013. The petitioner had filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and he had requested the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to send the matter to police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") for registering crime and for making investigation. After hearing the counsel of the petitioner and after going through the documents, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class held that it would not be proper to direct investigation under section 156(3) of the Code. Learned Judicial Magistrate has kept the matter for recording verification and thus has indicated that he will take cognizance of the matter. The petitioner has a grievance that the matter is not sent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) Before the Judicial Magistrate, present petitioner, who is an Advocate, has made allegation against as many as 11 persons, who include the officers of the Pollution Board of the State. Respondent No.1 Shri. Garg owns a stone crusher and he is also doing mining activity after taking necessary permission from the Collector and the Pollution Board. Allegations are made that the said permission is given in respect of Gut No.85 but the activity is being done in Gut No.86. It is contended that the authority has committed mistake in giving permission to original respondent No.1 for aforesaid activities. It appears that the petitioner has grievance that due to the activity of said Garg, his house is damaged and cracks are developed in the walls and roof of the house. The petitioner has requested for registering crime for offence punishable under sections 166, 167, 168, 177, 182, 188, 192, 197, 221, 268, 278, 336, 406, 408, 409, 420, 436, 464, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In support of the contention that when a petition is filed with request to direct the police to make investigation under section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate must make the order as prayed for and the Magistrate should not take cognizance of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following reported cases.