The learned Magistrate must apply judicious mind while issuing directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the complaint must be filed with lawful authority.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. Gadkari, J.) :

1. The Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code [for short “Cr.P.C.”] for quashing of M.E.C.R. No. 2 of 2012, registered with Malad Police Station, Mumbai, in furtherance of Order dated 9th January, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai in C.C. No.04/SW/2012..

2. Heard Mr. Kumbhokoni, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State. Perused entire record produced before us.

3. The record indicates that, Advocate Ms. Shabnam Latiwala has caused her appearance on behalf of Respondent No.2, the contesting Respondent. As far as Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are concerned, they had claimed that, they were authorized to represent Respondent-2, Company. Their said claim has been adjudicated by this Court and by an Order dated 7th May, 2012, it has been held that, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no authority to represent Respondent No.2 and it is Advocate Ms. Shabnam Latiwala, authorized to represent Respondent No.2. The said Order dated 7th May, 2012 holds the field and there is no deviation in the adjudication effected by this Court on the claim of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, for their authority to represent Respondent No.2.

3.1 In the present Petition Rule and interim relief was granted by an Order dated 30th August, 2012.

4. Record reveals that, the complaint in question was allegedly filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on behalf of Respondent No.2, Company. In para 2 of the complaint, it is averred as under:

“2. Complainant no.2 is presently made dummy Managing Director of the complainant no. 1. Complainant nos. 3 were ex-Managing Directors of the complainant no.1 and complainant no. 3 is the present Chief Executive Officer of the complainant no.1.”

5. The learned Magistrate by its impugned Order dated 9th January, 2012, while directing the Police to conduct investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., has himself admitted that without applying judicious mind to the case, he has passed the said Order by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrinivas Gundluri and Ors v/s. SEPCO Electric Power Constructions Corporation & Ors, reported in MANU/SC/0539/2010.

5.1 It is the settled position of law and as has been enunciated by this Court in the case of Sayed Anwar Ahmed & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 3972, while dealing with the complaint seeking an action under Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate cannot act mechanically. He is required to apply his mind to the contents of the complaint and the documents produced along with the complaint. That, an Order passed on the said complaint must record reasons in brief which should indicate application of mind by the Magistrate. However, it is not necessary to record detailed reasons. Other necessary legal parameters for issuance of directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. have been enunciated in the said decision by this Court.

5.2 As noted above, the learned Magistrate while issuing the direction under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. has himself admitted that, without applying judicious mind he has passed the Order impugned herein.

This ground alone is sufficient to set aside the impugned Order dated 9th January, 2012 and the further proceedings arisen thereof, including the registration of crime in question.

6. There is another facet to the present Petition. As noted above, in the complaint the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have represented themselves to be the authorized representatives of the Respondent No.2, Company for filing the said complaint and persuading the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned Order dated 9th January, 2012. The Authorised Representative/Director of Respondent No.2, Company, namely Retired Wing Commander Ajai Sharma has filed an A