ATUL ARORA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 482 CrPC assails the order dated 9.10.2007 and subsequent FIR based on it.

(2.) THE singular contention raised by Shri Prashant Sharma is that the Court below has mechanically passed the order dated 9.10.2007. The necessary ingredients for invoking said power were not taken in to account and in routine manner police authorities were directed to register the matter and start investigation. He relied on judgment of this Court and recent judgment of Supreme Court in (Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of U.P.).

(3.) SHRI R. S. Bansal, Advocate for the complainant submits that Court below has given a finding in the impugned order that averment of complainant were examined. This shows that there was proper application of mind. He also relied on 2008(2) SCC 409 (Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others). On the strength of this judgment, it is urged that power of Magistrate under sections 200,156(3) CrPC are very wide. The High Court should not interfere in a routine manner against orders passed by the Magistrate.