PANKAJ NAQVI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C , 1973is preferred against an order dated 8.3.2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) (Court No. 1), Muzaffar Nagar, whereby the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.6.2015, directing that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C , 1973be treated as a complaint, was set aside, with a further direction to decide the same afresh.
(3.) The Apex Court in the case of HDFC Securities Ltd and Others v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2017) 1 SCC 640 , has recently held that in proceedings arising out of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, 1973 neither a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India nor an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C , 1973is maintainable till such time cognizance is not taken and process not issued. The operative paragraph of the judgement is extracted hereunder: "It appears to us that the appellants approached the High Court even before the stage of issuance of process. In particular, the appellants challenged the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants after summarizing their arguments in the matter have emphasized also in the context of the fundamental rights of the appellants under the Constitution, that the order impugned has caused grave inequities to the appellants. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the order is illegal and is an abuse of the process of law. However, it appears to us that this order under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage, requires quashing of the investigation. We must keep in our mind that the stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate. Therefore, in our opinion, at this stage the High Court has correctly assessed the facts and the law in this situation and held that filing of the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 at this stage are nothing but premature. Further, in our opinion, the High Court correctly came to the conclusion that the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 should be sparingly used. In these circumstances, we do not find that there is any flaw in the impugned order or any illegality has been committed by the High Court in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. Accordingly, we affirm the order so passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. The appeal is dismissed.";