crapln777.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.777 OF 2010. Subhash Ramgopal Bharuka, age 56 yrs., Occu. Business, r/o Main Road, Samarth Nagar, at Post & Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. .. RESPONDENT. ... Shri R.F. Totla, Advocate for applicant. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, APP for State. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 18th February, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing by consent of the parties. crapln777.10 2 3. Both the sides agree that by setting aside the impugned judgment and order, the matter may be remanded to the concerned Court to be decided on its merits. 4. It is not necessary to repeat the facts of this case, which are elaborately stated by the applicant in his application. Suffice it to say that the application filed by the applicant u/s 156 of Cr.P.C. was not decided on its own merits. However, the trial Court directed the applicant to keep the complainant for verification and statement of the complainant. 5. It appears that the trial Court has not noticed the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2010(1) Mh.L.J. 421. The Full Bench of this Court has taken a view that it is an option available to an individual crapln777.10 3 either to invoke jurisdiction under Section 156(3) or section 200 of Cr.P.C. The said position has been stated by the Full Bench in paragraphs 58 to 60 of its judgment. In para 58 of the said judgment, the Full Bench of this Court held, thus: "58. ..... It is an option available to an individual whether to invoke powers of the State/Investigating Agency under Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code. ...." 6. Therefore, on this backdrop, the concerned Court should have disposed of the application of the applicant filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on its own merits. When the choice is given to the litigant, the Court is required to see that the application is disposed of on merits. The only point urged by the Counsel for the applicant / complainant is that the trial Court should have decided the crapln777.10 4 application of the complainant u/s 156(3) on its own merits, one way or the other. 7. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2009 passed in Criminal M.A. NO.269/2009 below Exh.1 and order dated 29th January, 2010 passed below Exh.5 cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed. 8. Hence, the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2009 passed in Criminal M.A. NO. 269/2009 below Exh.1 and order dated 29th January, 2010 passed below Exh.5 are quashed and set aside. Criminal M.A. no.269/2009 is restored to its original file. The concerned Court to hear the said application in the light of Full Bench judgment in case of and Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani (supra), by giving proper opportunity to both sides. It is made clear that this Court has not crapln777.10 5 expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the concerned Court to decide the matter on its own merits, after hearing the parties. The trial Court to decide the Criminal M.A. NO.269/2009 within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Application allowed accordingly and disposed of. Rule made absolute in the above terms. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*