1 CR.APL.NO.5141/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 921. APPLN/5141/2010 (SADASHIV GANGADHARRAO KULKARNI [Criminal] V/S THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.A.B.Kale and Mr.G.K.Thigle, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for State. Mr.H.M.Shaikh, Adv., for R.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 2-2-2011 1. Heard. The petitioner, a L.I.C. Officer, seeks quashing the order dt.28.10.2010, issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, in Miscellaneous Application No.519/2010. 2. Several submissions are advanced by both the learned Counsel and also the learned A.P.P., most of them are travelling beyond the scope of the present proceedings. Consequently, this Court is not required to dissect them or deal with them. 2 CR.APL.NO.5141/2010 3. The short point in the matter is, whether after the directions in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. issued by the learned Judge, what has happened in the matter. 4. The direction of the learned Judge below Exh.1 in Miscellaneous Application No.519/2010 reads as under: “ Perused complaint and documents filed along with it the matter is sent to Taluka Jalna Police Station to investigate this case under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and to submit Charge sheet or report in the Court on or before 22.11.2010. The original papers be sent to concern Police Station and the set of xerox copy be kept in the court. Issue letter to P.I. Police Station, Kadim Jalna. Accordingly, the application is disposed off.” 5. Mr. Kale, learned Counsel submits that the complaint suffers from suppression of facts as there was already inquiry conducted by the competent Police Officer who has given a negative report dt. 13.10.2010 which fact has not been disclosed, deliberately to avoid 3 CR.APL.NO.5141/2010 dismissal of the complaint. He read the report of the Police Officer, including gist of the statements of the two witnesses, named by the original complainant, respondent no.2. 6. Learned A.P.P., based on the report of the Police Officer, informs, on the preliminary inquiry, the allegations in the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, are found to be non est; no event, as has been attributed to the petitioner herein, has taken place. 7. The learned Judge is bound to consider the same. 8. Since the matter is at a preliminary stage after passing orders in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. dt.28.10.2010, the position of law is quite indicative, the Court has not yet taken cognizance, process is not yet issued. Consequently, the apprehension of the petitioner is 4 CR.APL.NO.5141/2010 premature. 9. No coercive steps to be taken against the petitioner. The petition is disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/5141-10crapl