LAWS(MPH)-2019-2-128

CHIRONJI SHIVHARE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On February 14, 2019
Chironji Shivhare Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern disposal of M.Cr.C.No. 19437/2018 and M.Cr.C.No. 19443/2018 as nature of both these petitions are same and both these petitions have been filed against identical orders passed over the application of complainant i.e. respondent No. 2; however, for the sake of convenience, facts of M.Cr.C. No. 19437/2018 are taken into consideration.

(2.) The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners being crestfallen by order dated 22/12/2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the trial Court; whereby, direction over application of respondent No. 2 filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been given to SHO, Police Station, Huzrat Kotwali, District Gwalior to register the case against the petitioner and investigate the matter. Petitioners are further aggrieved by order dated 4/5/2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court No. 3), HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Chironji Shivhare and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. ) AND (Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. ) Gwalior whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioners has been rejected on the ground of maintainability as the revision was not maintainable because it takes exception to interlocutory order of trial Court.

(3.) It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that order issuing direction to police authority, bears three inherent defects which cannot be cured in light of catena of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court. Learned senior counsel referred the complaint and submits that an application has been filed by respondent No. 2/complainant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. without filing a private complaint under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. therefore, same is not maintainable. Another ground raised by petitioners is that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not carry affidavit in its fold and therefore, same is contrary to dictum of Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. And Ors., AIR 2015 SC 1758.