BACHHU LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7 th April 2012 passed on an unregistered Criminal Complaint Case by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Bhind, whereby in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the learned trial court directed to register the F.I.R. against the petitioners and pursuant thereto, the respondent No.1/EOW Wing Gwalior by lodging F.I.R. at Crime No. 27/2012 has proceeded with the investigation against the accused-petitioners.

(2.) The facts, in brief, just for the decision of this petition are that the petitioners were public servants and posted in Woman and Child Welfare Department in a district Bhind. The complainant-respondent No. 2 being the Secretary of Oshika Mahila Kalyan Mandal filed a complaint that the petitioners after connivance with Smt. Rajeshwari Devi and Prahalad Gandharv prepared the forged documents in the name of the Society to receive grant of Rs. 3,90,000/- which was issued by the State Government. On complaint, the trial Judge by an order dated 6 th September 2011 directed the State Economic Wing Gwalior to make an inquiry into the complaint of the respondent No.2. In compliance with the direction of the court, the State Economic Wing Gwalior submitted a detailed report. Thereafter, the trial Judge by an order dated 7 th April 2012 again directed that since the offences as alleged were cognizable, therefore, on the basis of the complaint filed before the court, it directed the respondent No.1 to lodge the F.I.R. and register the crime against the named accused and after investigation the report be sent to the court.

(3.) The contention put forth on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the trial Judge, once after making detailed inquiry into the alleged crime by the EOW Wing Gwalior and submission of the report in compliance with the directions of the court dated 6 th September 2011, the direction given by the trial Judge again while passing the order under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for lodging the F.I.R. and thereafter initiate the investigation against the named accused is misuse of the process of law. It is submitted that as per requirement of law, in the event of not accepting the report filed by the investigating agency, the trial court is under an obligation to proceed with the complaint under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and while proceeding so either he can pass the order under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. for dismissal of the complaint or under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. for issuing the process against the accused. In that view of the matter, the order under consideration is against the principles of law and same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 5 SCC 668and Pepsi Food Ltd Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1998 5 SCC 749.