SHRIRAM Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. The petitioner herein happens to be the original complainant. On 13th October, 2014, the petitioner herein had filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nanded, alleging therein that, he happens to be the Life member of National Integrated Medical Association (hereinafter referred to as "NIMA" for the sake of brevity). It is alleged in the complaint that, the association is the owner of property bearing Municipal No. 1-8-932. That, respondent No. 2 herein without consulting the other members of the association had rented the said premises in favour of the Post Office. He had retained all the documents with him. The rent which was paid by the Post office was accepted in cash by respondent No. 2. In short, the complainant had alleged that respondent No. 2 has misappropriated the funds of the association and liable for offence punishable under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order Dt. 5th November, 2014, learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded (herein after shall be referred to as "JMFC"), had given directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears from the order passed by JMFC that the said order in the nature of direction was not passed for the purpose of asking but the learned JMFC had applied his judicial mind.

(2.) Pursuant to the said order, crime No. 158 of 2014 was registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Nanded, against respondent No. 2 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 2 challenged the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing Criminal Revision No. 117 of 2014. The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, vide judgment and order dated 17th January, 2015, has been pleased to allow the revision and has quashed the order passed by learned JMFC issuing directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge has considered that the petitioner herein had no locus standi to file the complaint as the property allegedly misappropriated belongs to registered organizations and those organizations have right to take action if their property is misappropriated. In fact, this observation itself is unwarranted. Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates as follows:

(3.) In view of this, it can be said that the petitioner had the locus to file a complaint before learned JMFC and seek directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the purpose of initiating criminal prosecution, the locus of the complainant cannot be questioned. Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus: