Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Salim Qureshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2015
MCRC 8849/2014
(Dr.Salim Qureshi Vs. State of MP)
08/04/2015
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Bhagwan Raj Pandey, learned GA for
respondent No.1 State.
Shri VS Chouhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Heard.
On behalf of the petitioner, this petition is preferred under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 9/11/2009 passed by the Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, Datia whereby entertaining application of respondent No.2 filed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., directing the authorities of respondent No.1 State to register offence on such complaint under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and investigate the same.
Initially the case was argued at length by the petitioner's counsel for admission and allowing the petition, but in the course of arguments, we are apprised by the counsel for respondent No.1 that the aforesaid impugned order was initially challenged by the present petitioner by way of Criminal Revision No.917/2009 and on consideration the same was dismissed as premature vide order dated 7/1/2011 by 2 MCRC 8849/2014 extending some liberty to the petitioner, and, in such premises, petitioner has a remedy to raise all objections including the objections stated in this petition, and as, such order was never challenged on behalf of either of the parties before superior court, consequently, the same has attained finality between the parties, and in such premises, the petitioner has only right to raise all the questions before the Trial Court first and subject to outcome of the Trial Court on such questions, the petitioner may approach the superior court with appropriate proceedings permissible under the law.
In view of aforesaid information, on making certain query from the petitioner's counsel, on which he fairly concedes that earlier such order was passed in the revision- petition of the petitioner, and subsequently, he did not raise any of the alleged questions stated in the present petition before the Trial Court, and, in such premises, seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all objections and grounds stated either in the earlier revision petition or in the present petition before the Trial Court to challenge the sustainability of such order.
Considering such prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the grounds and objections stated in this petition, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid as prayed 3 MCRC 8849/2014 by the petitioner's counsel.
Aforesaid liberty has been given keeping in view the information supplied by the counsel present that in compliance of the impugned order some report has been filed before the Trial Court and on that basis, some proceeding is pending.
(U.C.Maheshwari) (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
Judge Judge
ppg