1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2022 OF 2008 Ashok Gangwani ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr.Advocae, with Mr.Ganesh Gole for the petitioner Mr.H.J.Dedhi A.P.P for State CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 1, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P for state. The present petition has been preferred by the original complainant. The complainant filed a complaint alleging commission of offences under sections 392, 448, 452, 380, 420, 468, 506(2) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prayer in the complaint was that a direction be issued to the concerned police station under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred as the said Code). An order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the said complaint on 14 th January 2008 adjourning the compliant for recording of verification statement of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate declining to pass an order under section 156(3) of the said Code, the petitioner preferred a revision application before the Sessions Court which came to be dismissed by order dated 7 th April 2008. 2 The grievance made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-complainant is that while considering 2 the revision application on merits, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the prayer made by the petitioner for an passing order under section 156 (3) of the said Code of 1973. 3 The record of the complaint was called for. The record shows that an order was passed on 14 th January 2008 on the complaint . The order records that the learned Judge heard the Advocate for the complainant at length and perused the documents on record. By the said order he directed that the verification statement be recorded. 2 The contention of the petitioner is that this was a case where an order under section 156(3) was required to be passed in as much as on the earlier complaint filed by the petitioner with the concerned police station, no action was taken. 3 In the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. Shivam Sunderam Promoters Private Limited and another [(2009) 2 SCC 363), the Apex Court held that when the learned Magistrate refuses to exercise jurisdiction under section 156 (3) of the said Code and when such order is challenged by the complainant by filing a revision application, the persons who have been arraigned as accused are required to be heard. 4 Perusal of the order passed by the Sessions Court on revision application preferred by the petitioner shows that merits of the revision application have not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner. Instead of keeping the petition pending, interests of justices will be served if the revision application is restored and the same is ordered to be heard after notice to the persons 3 who have been arraigned as accused in the complaint filed by the petitioner. 5 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 7 th April 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application no.2 of 2008 is quashed and set aside. ii)Revision application no.2 of 2008 is restored to the file. As the persons arraigned as accused in the complaint filed by the petitioner are not impleaded as parties to the said revision application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge will permit the petitioner to implead the said persons as party respondents to the said revision application. iii)The revision application shall be decided afresh after notice to the aforesaid added respondents. iv)The Revision application shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced before the court. v) The contentions of the parties on merits of the complaint are expressly kept open. vi)The Record and Proceedings shall be forthwith returned to the concerned court. JUDGE