ABHINAV CHAKRADHAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant- complainant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in unregistered Criminal Complaint Case No. 0/2013, whereby his complaint filed by mentioning Section 156 (3) of Cr.P. C. on the cause title for taking the cognizance of the offence of Sections 153, 153 (a), 153 (b), 121, 121 (a) 124 (a) and Section 120 (b) of the IPC and Sections 13, 16, 18, 20 of the Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act 1967 against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 with a further prayer for appropriate direction to some Police Station to register such offence against such respondents has been dismissed.

(2.) Shri Manish Datt, learned Sr. Adv assisted by Shri P.S. Chouhan, counsel for the applicant, after taking me through the copies of the report in writing (Annexure 2) and of the complaint (Annexure 3) filed in the aforesaid court of CJM, Bhopal alongwith the impugned order argued that although such complaint was filed in the court of CJM, Bhopal by the applicant under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In such complaint the prayer for taking cognizance of the above mentioned offence against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 with a further prayer for giving appropriate direction to the Police Station, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal to register the offence against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 for above mentioned offences was made. In addition to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the authorities to remove the objectionable version from the Internet site was also made.

(3.) If the aforesaid subordinate court, on consideration was not inclined to direct the aforesaid Police Station to register the offence, even then such court was duty bound to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provision of Chapter XV from Section 200 to 203 of Cr.P.C., r/w Section 190 of the same Code. In such premises, after refusing such prayer treating the impugned complaint to be a complaint defined under Section 2 (d), r/w Section 200 of Cr.P.C. the evidence of the applicant and his witnesses should have been recorded by such court under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C and thereafter on appreciation and evaluation of such evidence, the trial court should have passed the order either for dismissal of the complaint or for taking the cognizance of any of the offences in the matter against respondent nos. 1 and 2. In continuation, he said that it is apparent fact that such procedure has neither been adopted nor followed. He also said that in the available facts and circumstances in the light of decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Surech Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 AIR(SC) 571, the subordinate court should have directed the aforesaid Police Station to register the offence against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and prayed for taking the cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 by setting aside the impugned order or in any case to direct the aforesaid Police to register the offence and investigate the same or in any case, the case be remitted back to the aforesaid court to decide afresh by adopting the procedure provided in the above mentioned Chapter XV, r/w Section 190 of Cr.P.C by allowing this petition.