Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anoop Tyagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2015
M.Cr.C.No.9438/2015
(Anoop Tyagi & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.)
9/10/2015
Shri Sanjay Bahirani, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri R.B.S.Tomar, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Heard on the question of admission.
The applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for recalling the order dated 26.9.2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.5627/2013, whereby the SDO(P), Lahar, was directed to register cognizable offence against the applicants and investigate the matter and after holding such investigation, submit the report with respect of the incident dated 31.5.2013.
Initially after taking us through the petition including the papers placed on record alongwith the impugned order, applicants' counsel has argued the matter at length for admission saying that before passing the impugned order by this Court, on behalf of respondent No.2 with respect of the alleged incident, a private complaint was already filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate in which after adopting procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., cognizance of some offence was also taken against the applicants and after their appearance, they were bailed out and in such premises, there was no occasion for 2 respondent No.2 to approach this Court for appropriate direction to the police to register the offence and investigate the matter further when enquiry in that regard was already carried out by the Judicial Magistrate in a private complaint and matter was sub-judice before such Court of Judicial Magistrate, however, on asking the applicants' counsel that in view of the provisions of Section 210 of Cr.P.C., which provide that in pendency of the private complaint, the police has authority to investigate the matter and some of the direction has been given for the Court in which the private complaint is pending, how this petition is maintainable, on which after perusing such provision, applicants' counsel instead to argue further seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to file appropriate application before the Court of Judicial Magistrate in which the aforesaid private complaint is pending for adjudication against the applicants at the instance of respondent No.2, so also with liberty to take all the objections and grounds which have been taken in this petition at the appropriate stage before the trial Court in the aforesaid private complaint as well as in the police case if the same is filed on conclusion of the investigation of the case in compliance of the direction of the impugned order.
Considering the aforesaid prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, only in the light of provision of 3 Section 210 of Cr.P.C., by allowing the prayer of the applicants' counsel, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid, as prayed by the applicants' counsel.
(U.C.Maheshwari) (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
Judge Judge
ms/-