SUBHASH KANADE Vs. STATEOF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Counsel for respondents and the learned APP. By consent heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) The petitioner is the original complainant. He filed a complaint/ application before the Metropolitan Magistrate 27th Court at Mulund, alleging the commission of certain cognisable offences by persons named as accused in the said application/ complaint. The prayer of the petitioner before the Magistrate was that the investigation as contemplated under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Code") be ordered. On this application/ complaint, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:-

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision. The grievance of the petitioner was that instead of issuing an order under section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate had proceeded under the provisions of section 200 of the Code. The petitioner wanted an order under section 156(3) of the Code to be passed by the Magistrate and was apparently not satisfied with the Magistrate proceedings in the manner provided for by Chapter XV of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge who heard the revision application dismissed the same. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.