1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1296 OF 2008 Shankarrao Vyankatrao Patil & others Petitioners versus Ravindra Ramchandra Chavan & another Respondents Rahul S. Kate for petitioners. Jagdish Chavan with P.H.Gaikwad with Sanjeev P. Kadam for respondent no.2. H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th APRIL 2009 PC : 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (original accused) have taken an exception to the order dated 1st November 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saswad in private complaint no.75 of 2006 filed by the first respondent. In the said private complaint the first respondent alleged commission of offence under sections 465, 469, 477, 203, 193 read with section 34 of 2 Indian Penal Code. On 23rd May 2006 the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class passed an order on the said complaint directing investigation in exercise of powers under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Code”). 2. After carrying out the investigation the concerned police officer submitted a report before the learned Magistrate. In the said report dated 26th December 2006 the police officer claimed “C” summary on the ground that there was no evidence available against the petitioners. On 1st November 2007 the learned Magistrate passed an order directing that the complaint be sent for reinvestigation through Local Crime Branch. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 10th December 2007 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1781 of 2004 (The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ibrahim Adamwalla). He submitted that the power of learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the said Code is confined to issuing a direction to an officer in-charge of a police station to investigate in a cognizable case over which the Magistrate has jurisdiction. He submitted that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct investigation by Local Crime Branch. He submitted that subsequently there has been a settlement between the 3 petitioners and the first respondent. He invited my attention to affidavit dated 26th March 2009 filed in this Court by the first respondent in which first respondent has accepted the settlement and has recorded his no objection for allowing the petition. I have also heard learned counsel for the first respondent who stated that the first respondent has is submitting to the orders of the Court in view of the settlement. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. Looking to the seriousness of the allegations made in the complaint this is not a case where power under section 482 of the said Code could be exercised to quash the complaint on the ground of settlement. 5. The learned Magistrate exercised the power under section 156(3) of the said Code and directed the officer in-charge of Saswad Police Station to carry out the investigation. Accordingly, the said police officer submitted a report before the learned Magistrate seeking “C” summary. By the impugned order dated 1st November 2007 the learned Judge directed reinvestigation of the complaint through Local Crime Branch. In the decision of this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ibrahim Adamwall (supra) it was held that the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the said Code to direct investigation is restricted to 4 directing a police officer of the police station over which the concerned Magistrate has jurisdiction. The Magistrate cannot issue direction for investigation by a police officer of a police station situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of his Court. The Division Bench in the said decision held that a direction cannot be issued by the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under section 156(3) to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to the State C.I.D. (Crime) to investigate an offence. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench, the learned Magistrate has committed an error by directing reinvestigation through the Local Crime Branch. Such a direction could not have been issued by the learned Magistrate. 6. A perusal of the report submitted by the concerned Police Officer of Saswad Police Station shows that the first respondent-complainant has produced no evidence to show that there was any fabrication of documents by the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent is submitting to the orders of this Court. Considering the report, the learned Magistrate ought to have accepted “C” summary. 7. Hence, I pass following order :- 5 1) The impugned order dated 1st November 2007 is quashed and set aside; 2) The learned Magistrate will pass a formal order of accepting “C” summary; 3) The petition is allowed accordingly. (A.S.OKA, J.)