The court emphasized the necessity for Investigating Officers to comply with judicial orders for further investigation, highlighting the importance of timely justice and the rights of complainants.

JUDGMENT :

(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ramrakhiani, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Gor, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Ms. Krishnaiyer, learned APP for the State.

2. After hearing the parties on 28.11.2024, this Court passed the following order.:-

“1. Heard Mr. Ramrakhiani, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Gor, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Ms.Krishnaiyer, learned APP for the State.

2. In view of the issue involved in the present Criminal Revision Application (for short “CRA”), it needs to be heard finally so that appropriate order can be passed.

3. Briefly stated, Revision Applicant is aggrieved with the impugned order dated 02.08.2023, inter alia, dismissing his complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the learned JMFC, Pune.

4. The principal ground to challenge the order is with reference to a specific direction contained in the previous order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the same Court, however, by the predecessor JMFC. This order is appended at Exhibit “C” – page No.32 of the CRA. By virtue of this order, directions were given to the Investigating Officer (IO) by the Court to carry out further investigation with reference to specific directions and observations of the Court in that order and file a report within a period of one month from the date of the order. That report ought to have been filed on or before 28.07.2022. Admittedly, it was not filed. Sequitur of this is that the IO has not complied with the said order.

5. Ground to challenge the impugned order is specifically with respect to the directions contained in the previous order dated 29.06.2022. Mr. Ramrakhiani, learned Advocate has candidly informed the Court that on 21.06.2023 complainant through his Advocate filed a pursis. While drawing my attention to the said pursis he would submit that complainant was virtually tired and harassed and resultantly filed the said pursis which is evident after reading the contents. He would submit that after passing of order dated 29.06.2022 the matter was listed before the Trial Court on 9 different occasions upto 14.06.2023 and adjourned without any orders. In that view, complainant filed the pursis to stop further inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. as suggested by the Court. He would submit that not even once, the Court called upon the IO to comply with the order dated 29.06.2022.

6. Mr. Gor, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Ms. Krishnaiyer, learned APP for the State would oppose the Application and would submit that it is at the Applicant / complainant’s own volition that pursis was filed and the matter was heard finally leading to passing of the impugned order. Hence, it is now not open to him to re-agitate the same issue and re-visit the order dated 29.06.2022. I have perused the order dated 29.06.2022 and the impugned order. On going through both the orders, what I find intriguing is the fact that transactions involved in the present case have already been taken into cognizance in the report of the IO submitted previously in compliance of the previous order dated 11.09.2019. Inquiry was conducted by IO under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and report dated 25.10.2021 was filed in the Court, which was taken on record and marked as Exhibit “11”. It is only thereafter that the matter was heard by the learned Trial Court on 29.06.2022. The directions contained in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the order dated 26.06.2022 in the opinion of the Trial Court would require further investigation as it would unearth the real facts in the case under investigation. The directions were given in view of the inadequacy of investigation seen from the previous report dated 25.10.2021 which was taken on record below Exhibit “11”.

7. In that view of the matter, directions contained in the order dated 29.06.2022 ought to have been complied with. Admittedly, record indicates that they have not been complied with. The concerned IO has gone comple