JUDGMENT:- At the outset, Mr. Gupta learned Advocate for the applicant states that he does not press for prayer clause (a) and shall argue the application only as far as the prayer clause (b) and consequential reliefs are concerned.

2. The applicant herein filed the complaint to the Police on 05-09-2002 under Sections 467, 471 and 474 of the I.P.C. The offence complained of pertains to creation of forged and fabricated will. Police registered the non-cognizable offence and applied to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola requesting for permission to investigate the offences. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola passed an order on 10-10-2002 to the effect that:"In view of the reasons permission granted u/s 155(2) of Cr.P.C., dt.10-10-2002."

3. This order was challenged by the present non-applicant no.2 by filing a Criminal Revision Application which was registered as Criminal Revision No.235 of 2002. The present applicant was not made party to the revision application for which the applicant filed the application Exh.8 for intervention and the applicant herein was accordingly heard. The grievance represented before the Revisional Court as a ground can be grasped from the reasons recorded by the Revisional Court wherein para 9 of the submissions of the present non-applicant no.2 have been noted which reads as follows:"

9........ Shri. K.M.A. Husain, learned Adv. for the applicant submits that the police is not empowered to investigate the non-cognizable offence without the order of Magistrate. The duty of the Police is to record the information of non-cognizable and refer the informant to Magistrate. He submits that the policy of law is to seek the relief through Magistrate without intervention of the police. He submits that the order passed by the Magistrate does not disclose any reason for the investigation, and therefore, the order is not sustainable."

4. Thus, the grievance in a nutshell is that the police without the order from the Magistrate investigated into the offence which is non-cognizable. All that which is required to be done is to make a report to the Magistrate of having received a report of Commission of non-cognizable offence. According to the present non-applicant no.2, therefore, the action of the Investigating Officer in seeking permission for investigation into the offences was absolutely without any grounds and foundation. According to the non-applicant, as was further urged before the Court, that in the intervening period, the present applicant has already filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and even examined the witnesses in which process was issued and in that background, no further investigation was warranted or permissible. The order was also challenged on account of being an unreasoned order.

5. The Learned Sessions Judge was convinced with the submissions of the Petitioner and held that the order passed by the Magistrate did not show that he had applied mind before permitting the police to investigate the offence and the order being passed without reasons was liable to be set aside. The Court further found that there were no good reasons for granting such permission as Kedarnath Agrawal had already, in his own remedy approached the Magistrate, and allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate on 10-10-2002 which was under challenge.

6. The learned Advocate Shri. Gupta further argued that the fact remains that in a private complaint filed by the petitioner for cognizable offence, process is already issued, and for the same event complained of by the applicant before police, now the investigation shall be done by the Police may be with a belief that no cognizable offence is committed.

According to Mr. Gupta due to such investigation, no prejudice what soever can be said to be caused to the accused more particularly when the procedure as prescribed by law in Section 210 of Cr.P.C. contemplates possibility of such investigation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document