Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 32ND COURT,
BANDRA, MUMBAI
C.C. No. 117/SW/2022
Aditi G. Talekar … Complainant
Vs.
Mamta Patil and others … Accused
ORDER BELOW EXH.1.
Perused the application with filed documents and so many
citations. Heard the learned adv. for the complainant at length. He filed
written notes of arguments as well as orally argued. The applicant is
praying to investigate the matter under section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. It appears that complainant cited so many
accused persons and no link seen between them. Furthermore, it
appears that cheating complaint instituted against said complainant and
due to that complaint now she want this investigation. This is not the
criteria for enforcing section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The applicant has not shown any cognizable offence.
The learned advocate for complainant filed so many
citations on record :
a) In Lalita Kumari's case, the duties of police officers in respect of
section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure are discussed. The ratio is
considered while deciding the present application in hand.
b) In Anju Chaudhari's case, multiple FIR filed for same incident and
in that era, section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provision
is discussed. The ratio is considered while deciding the present
application in hand.
-- 1 of 4 --
2
c) In State of Telangana Vs.Habib Jilani's case, the provisions of
section 482 and 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure are discussed. It is
not relevant to the present application and therefore not considered.
d) In Sukhwasi's case, it focused on the word “may” in section 156 (3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that it is judicial discretion
of Magistrate. The ratio is considered while deciding the present
application in hand.
e) In Matajog Dobey's case, it is on the provision of sanction under
section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not relevant to the
present application and therefore not considered.
f) Again in Inspector of police Vs. Battenapatla's case, the provision of
sanction is discussed. It is not relevant to the present application and
therefore not considered.
g) In Chandra Zha's case, limitation for election petition is discussed. It
is not relevant to the present application and therefore not considered.
h)In Cherukuri Mani's case, Article 21 of the Constitution is discussed.
It is not relevant to the present application and therefore not
considered.
i) In Smt. Masuman's case, scope of section 156 (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is discussed. The ratio is considered while deciding
the present application in hand.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
j) In Devendra Prasad Singh's case, the provisions of section 197 and
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discussed. It is not relevant to
the present application and therefore not considered.
k) In Babulal's case, the basic requirements for issuing investigation
under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are discussed.
The ratio is considered while deciding the present application in hand.
l) In Madhubala's case, the powers of police under section 154 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and the directions which may be given by a
Magistrate are discussed. The ratio is considered while deciding the
present application in hand.
m) In CBI vs. State of Rajasthan, the powers of Magistrate discussed in
the scenario of section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
ratio is considered while deciding the present application in hand.
n) In Gopal Das Vs. State of Asam, Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed
the scope of section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
ratio is considered while deciding the present application in hand.
o) In Chandradev Singh Vs. Prakash Bose, Hon'ble Supreme Court
discussed the scope of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It
is not relevant to the present application and therefore not considered.
p) In Dwarikesh Sugar Ltd. Vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works, the
facts of the case are totally different and it is related with civil dispute.
It is not relevant to the present application and therefore not
considered.
-- 3 of 4 --
4
q) In Sugeson Transport Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Police, the facts
of the case are totally different and therefore the ratio is not applicable
to the present application in hand and therefore not considered.
Hence, considering all the aspects and background of
the application, it is not a fit case for sending to the police for
investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Hence, the prayer of investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is rejected. Applicant has only prayed for section
156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and nothing else. Hence, it is
rejected.
Date 21.12.2022 ( Smt. A.M. Shah)
Place – Mumbai Metropolitan Magistrate,
32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai
Ssl.
-- 4 of 4 --