ARUN KUMAR JAIN Vs. DINESH TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of Cr. R. No. 546/2007 Arun Kumar Jain vs. Dinesh Tripathi and nine others and M.Cr.C. No. 1580/2008, Madhu Kumar Babu and four others vs. State and others. A copy of this order be placed in the record of both the cases.

(2.) The Criminal Revision No. 546/2007 has been filed by the complainant Arun Kumar Jain assailing the tenability and viability of the order dated 11-4-2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revisions No. 352/2006, 386/2006 and 389/2006, whereby the order passed by the trial Court dated 3-5-2006, directing the Police to take appropriate steps as per section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code on a private complaint against the accused persons in accordance with law with an intimation to the Court on the next date was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court to pass appropriate orders after due application of mind. Being aggrieved by such direction applicant Arun Kumar Jain has assailed the order iMPLJgned in the; revision.

(3.) M.Cr.C. No. 1580/2008 has been filed by the accused persons namely Madhu Kumar Babu, Virendra Singh, B. J. Salunke and Brajesh Mishra under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the private complaint filed against them by Arun Kumar Jain. In the petition it is contended that as per the allegations of the private complaint, on the face of it no offence is made out , against them and it has been filed to take vengeance with mala fide intention, however, the complaint filed against them may be quashed. It is also contended that the revisional Court while passing the order iMPLJgned after referring various judgments of the Apex Court came to hold that while passing the order, exercising the powers under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate ought to have applied his mind on the allegations as alleged in the complaint. If on the face of allegations no offence disclosing cognizable offence is made out then trial Court ought not to apply his mind again, in passing the order in furtherance to the order of revisional Court. Thus, the complaint filed against them may be quashed.