DR. DEEPAK Vs. DR. SHRIRAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr.J.M.Murkute, learned Advocate waives service for respondents no.1 and 2 and the learned APP waives service for the respondents no.3 to 5. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submits that the learned Magistrate had rightly directed investigation under Sub Section 3 of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on an application filed by the petitioner bearing No.OMCA No.522/2015 by order dated 8/6/2015 but has committed a gross error which has resulted in miscarriage of justice when the self same Magistrate without having any power under the Code of Criminal Procedure recalled his earlier order by the impugned order dated 15/10/2015. The Magistrate had no such jurisdiction to recall his own order and has committed gross illegality. He referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman V/s State of Maharashtra and another, (2004) 13 SCC 324 and Iris Computers Limited V/s Askari Infotech Private Limited and others, (2015) 14 SCC 399.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner further pointed out that even the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dismissed the revision without appreciating the law that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction and power to recall his own order. Therefore, even the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision suffers from gross illegality.