IMPORTANT POINT
The powers of a Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) of the CrPC are extensive and can be exercised at various stages of the proceedings, but the adequacy of the investigation under Sec. 173(8) can suffice without necessitating the use of Sec. 156(3).

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.C. Arora for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. S.P. Deshmukh for the respondent.

2. The petitioner is the informant, who had filed First Information Report on 22/8/2019 vide Crime No.347/2019 with Pundlik Nagar Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Sec. 406, 420, 120-B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec. 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1999. The investigation is complete and charge sheet came to be filed with the Special Judge (M.P.I.D. Court), Aurangabad on 25/11/2019 against two persons. It has been alleged that the two accused persons had accepted huge amount from informant and other persons by way of investment had promised that they would double the amount within a stipulated period and after accepting the amount it has been misappropriated. It was to the tune of Rs.4,30,98,999.00.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition are that at Exh.58 in Special (MPID) Case No.10/2019 the present petitioner had filed said application praying for directions for investigation under Sec. 156(3) and 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be given to the Investigating Officer and then it was also prayed that Police Inspector, Economic Offence Wing, to be directed to carry out investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against one Kachru Mohan Dike and to add him as accused No.3 in the said crime.

4. The said application was objected on behalf of the prosecution as well as accused No.1 had objected the said application by filing written say and after hearing both sides the learned Special Judge (MPID Court), Aurangabad partly allowed the application. The Investigating Officer was directed to conduct further investigation as per Sec. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, the prayer for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure was rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the rejection of the prayer for sending the matter for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is invoking the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the above order. Since beginning the Investigating Officer has taken a soft attitude towards said Kachru Dike, when in fact, allegations were made against him in the First Information Report itself by the petitioner. It was stated in the written complaint that he should be made as an accused No.3, however, at the time of charge sheet it has been filed only against two persons. The Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation in a very formal way. He has deleted Sec. 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act earlier, however, thereafter it came to be added later on. Sec. 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act provides attachment of properties on default of return of deposits. However, the properties were not attached and at that time also the informant present petitioner was required to move the Courts. Now, after the steps have been taken, the properties are stated to be attached and supplementary charge sheet has also been filed. Yet, another defect has been kept as it is by not including said Kachru Dike as accused No.3. The informant as well as other witnesses have stated that amount of Rs.7,00,000.00 was given to said Kachru Dike in September, 2019. When it comes to the misappropriation of the amount it will have to be then further connected to the fact that when the amount was handed over to accused No.3, then, how there can be misappropriation by accused Nos.1 and 2. The informant and witnesses have also stated that they had seen accused No.3, who is in fact, the father-in-law of accused No.1