Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1035 (MP)

Gaurav Chaturvedi v. State of M. P.

2014-08-20

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This writ appeal has been filed against an order dated 15.1.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.8185/2013. Aforesaid writ petition was filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 herein before the writ Court for quashment of the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena. By the order dated 7.1.2013, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena called the report from the concerning police station in exercise of powers under section 156(3) of CrPC in a complaint case filed by the petitioner alleging commission of offence punishable under sections 420, 467,468,120B and 379 of IPC against the respondents No.3 and 4 of this appeal. The writ Court quashed the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the CJM, Morena in W.P. No.8185/2013 under the impugned order. 3. We have asked the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that whether the present appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the writ Court or not because in our opinion the writ Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order passed by the CJM, Morena calling for the report from the concerning police station in exercise of powers under section 156(3) of CrPC was an administrative order and it was not a judicial order. He further contended that the Hon. Supreme Court has issued directions in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 that whenever a complaint of cognizable offence is filed to the police, it is the duty of the police to register the FIR and because the police did not register the FIR hence the Magistrate has issued directions to the police to submit a report. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Magistrate was an order passed in exercise of administrative powers. 5. We are not in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Magistrate has passed the judicial order in judicial proceedings. He has exercised his jurisdiction in consonance with the provisions of sections 156(3) of CrPC Since, the writ Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, in our opinion, the writ appeal is not maintainable. The learned Magistrate has passed the judicial order in judicial proceedings. He has exercised his jurisdiction in consonance with the provisions of sections 156(3) of CrPC Since, the writ Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, in our opinion, the writ appeal is not maintainable. As we have considered the question of maintainability of the appeal and found that the appeal itself is not maintainable, hence, it is not necessary to consider merits of the case. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. .........................