1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4379 of 2008 (Dr.Ashok s/o Laxmanrao Deshpande and others vs The State of Maharashtra with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.398 OF 2009 (Nandkumar s/o Yedbaji Jantre and another vs. State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.S.Choudhary, Adv., for the applicants in both the applications. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, APP, for respondent/State. Mr. D.B.Bhange, Adv., for respondent no.4. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:8/9/2009 ... P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel and learned A.P.P. 2. A complaint filed by respondent no.4 vide Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.215/2008, dated 15th Nov.,2008 and thereby filing of FIR vide Crime No.7/2008 at Police Station Georai, is 2 subject of challenge by the applicant by taking recourse to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. Very elaborately Mr. Choudhary, Counsel, has read the complaint and contended that allegations therein are false; it was in the official capacity, Departmental action was initiated against respondent no.4. It has ramifications in report in falsely implicating several officers of high positions. 4. He also pointed out that some of the applicants ( at Sr.Nos. 5, 11, 13 and 17 ) herein (accused) indeed are belonging to the same class of caste which respondent no. 4 (original complainant) belongs to. The Counsel contended that there could not have been a prosecution of such persons for infraction of any of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. The learned Judge, based 3 on the complaint and reading the same, on 15.11.2008, passed following order: "Read the complaint. It would be just to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, concerned S.D.P.O. is directed to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. " 6. During the course of submissions, the Counsel took me to the provisions of Section 200, 202 of Cr.P.C., however, we need not skip attention to the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. under which the learned Magistrate directed for investigation in the matter by S.D.P.O. 7. The exercise under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. comes into play in three situations as indicated in the very Section itself, those are: "(a) to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or 4 (b) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or, (c) otherwise to secure the ends of justice." This Court, in the matter of Pavankumar Bhurmalji Ostwal and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another ( 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 691) has taken a view that, the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., calling upon the Police to file report and when there was no process issued against the applicant, applicants cannot be branded as accused, applies to the fact situation of the present case. 8. It is more than clear, the learned Judge has only directed investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. He has not issued any process against the accused/applicants. The accused/applicants, indeed, cannot be branded as accused. The registration of the offense vide Crime No.7/2008, by itself will not tantamount requiring 5 invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as it was basically in compliance to directions, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 9. It is informed, respondent no.4 has been reinstated, he should not have grievance against highly placed officials, some of them having retired. The learned Judge will naturally consider role of individual applicant, then may pass appropriate order, since he has not taken cognizance of any offense. Both the applications are premature hence, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/4379-08crapl