1 Criminal Writ Petition No.583 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.583 OF 2011 Shankar S/o.Mahajan Tidke, Age-100 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Bondhar (Haveli), Tq. and Dist. Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Savita W/o.Dilip Tidke, Age-30 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Bondhar (Haveli), Tq. And Dist. Nanded, 2. Dilip S/o.Shankarrao Tidke, Age-35 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o. As above. 3. Ashok S/o.Digambar Kadam, Age-50 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Shankrirth, Tq.Mudkhed, Dist. Nanded. 4. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station (Rural) Nanded, Dist. Nanded. RESPONDENTS Mr.G.G.Kadam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 29/09/2011 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.583 of 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23/03/2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision No.126/2010, dismissing the criminal revision and confirming the order passed below Exh.1 in RCC No.653/2010, by the learned J.M.F.C. Nanded dated 09/09/2010. 2. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has approached the police station about the mis-deeds of respondents no.1 to 3. As the concerned police station refused to take cognizance of the complaint, attempted to be lodged about the alleged false sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.1 to which respondents no.2 and 3 are the witnesses, the petitioner was constrained to file private complaint before the learned J.M.F.C. Nanded. After perusal of the contents therein, learned J.M.F.C. Nanded had passed the order to proceed under Chapter XV of The Cr.P.C. and called upon the complainant to give his verification statement. It is the grievance of the petitioner/complainant that the learned Magistrate ought to pass the order of investigation u/s. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Then the petitioner herein had filed Criminal Revision Application No.126 of 2010 before the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded. By reasoned order particularly in para no.3, it is observed that by the impugned order dated 09/09/2010, Trial Court has not disposed for the complaint of the complainant. On the contrary, it will continued further in view of the provisions u/s. 202 and 203 of the Cr.P.C. In fact, what it 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.583 of 2011 seems that, the impugned order is interlocutory in nature. It was ought to the complainant to proceed with the complaint further instead of filing this revision petition, hence declined to entertain the criminal revision and accordingly dismissed that application. 3. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mona Panwar versus High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, (2011) 3 SCC 496 = (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1181, has observed in para no.21 to 24 that it is the discretion of the Judicial Magistrate before whom the complaint is lodged whether to order the investigation u/s. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. or to proceed with the complaint as provided under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. Once the order is passed by the learned Magistrate, instead of ordering investigation u/s. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., but to proceed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., High Court not to interfere in such orders. Considering these observations, no interference is required at the hands of this Court in the order impugned. Writ petition sans any merit, hence dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEPT.2011/cri.w.p.583-11