:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.283 OF 2004 Mr. B.G. Ahuja. ....Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents. Br.B.G. Ahuja present in person. Mr.Ranjit More for the Respondent No.2. Mr. R.S. Apte for the Respondent No.3. Mrs. M.M.Mhatre, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 17/2/2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard parties. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 3. This is a revision application impugning an order dated 24.5.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli in RCC Case No.11/2003 rejecting a complaint filed by the present applicant in his court. The facts of :2: the case are that the present applicant was involved in incident dated 20.11.1999 in which according to him he was fired upon by revolver by the present respondent No.2. On an F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident, the police commenced the investigation. They found substance in the complaint and a charge-sheet came to be filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. In the said case police in their investigation only made the present respondent No.2 as accused and thus, the present respondent No.2 is the only accused in Sessions Case No.60/2001 pending in the Sessions Court at Sangli. 4. The complainant had a grievance with the investigation and the manner in which it was carried out. According to him, there was a conspiracy to commit his murder and the present respondent No.3 Mr. Kishandas Gidwani was party to such conspiracy. Being aggrieved by the non addition of respondent No.3 Mr.Gidwani as one of the accused, he filed an application before the Addl. Sessions Court, Sangli seeking investigation under Section 173(8) read with Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. On that application, :3: the Sessions Court passed an order dated 3.10.2002 rejecting the application. In Para 18 of the said order it was observed that if really, the applicant was desirous of making allegations against persons, who are not made accused in this case and he had knowledge of the facts regarding their role, he ought to have filed a private complaint before the Magistrate against such persons and could have sought directions from the Magistrate for investigation, but instead of doing so, he waited till he is called as a witness in this case to depose before the court and filed this application. After such an order was passed by the Sessions Court, the applicant filed a private complaint on 18.1.2003 in the court of C.J.M. Sangli. The present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were shown as accused in the said complaint. That the said complaint was filed in person and not presented through any advocate and it was prayed that Section 201, 120B and Section 34 of the I.P.C. may also be applied to try the persons shown as accused by ordering proper enquiry and investigation for judicial probe in the matter. This complaint was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.5.2004 :4: on the basis of the fact that this court in some earlier proceeding had allowed the complainant to intervene in the sessions case and to instruct the Public Prosecutor to take necessary steps. It appears from the record that in the earlier writ petition being Writ Petition No.843/2000, the present respondent No.3 was not made party and the grievance at that stage was in respect of some other orders passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate and upheld in revision by the Addl.Sessions Judge in C.R.A.No 128/1999. The relief in that petition pertains to the case pending against the present respondent No.2. 5. It appears that as far as grievance against the present respondent No.3 is concerned though the grievance was made for the first time in the complaint, it is not disputed before me that there is no question of any limitation in filing the complaint as the alleged offence was of criminal conspiracy to commit offence under Section 307 which is punishable with life. Needless to say that, there is no limitation prescribed. Such a complaint can be filed at any stage on the ground of improper investigation on the part of the police. Same :5: ought to have been looked into and disposed off by the concerned Magistrate on its own merits. It would not have been proper to dismiss the said complaint on a ground other than it lacked any merits. It is however, clear that in so far as Respondent No.2 is concerned, the complaint would not lie because the respondent No.2 is already being tried before the Sessions Court at Sangli. Needless to say that, if the complainant has any grievance as regards the conduct of the case pending in sessions case, he is at liberty to make an application under section 301(2) before the Sessions Court for hearing him in the matter. If any such application is made, the same may be disposed off on merits. 6. In so far as allegations against the respondent No.3 made in the complaint dated 18.1.2003 are concerned, the matter was required to be dealt with by the court on merits if necessary by holding an enquiry or directing an enquiry to be held by the police if the court found it necessary. I find that the complaint has not been dismissed on merits and in the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order :6: dated 24.5.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli In R.C.C No.11/2003 is set aside and it is directed that the said complaint be decided on merits. It is made clear that any observations made in this order will not come in way of deciding the said complaint on merits. Rule is made absolute. The complaint will be treated only as complaint against the Respondent No.3. If at all on merits, any material is found against the Respondent No.3, the matter may be committed to the Court of Sessions. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)