ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The short point involved in the instant writ petition is, whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg, is justified in invoking power and jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the CrPC in directing registration of first information report (FIR) and consequent investigation against the petitioners and to submit final report / closure report after finding compliance with the provisions contained in sub-sections (1) & (3) of Section 154 of the CrPC?

2. The aforesaid question arises in the following backdrop: -

3. Petitioner No.1 is the Principal of Delhi Public School, Risali Sector, Bhilai, whereas, other petitioners are Teachers / Lab Assistant working in the said school. It is the case of the petitioners that a complaint was received from the students of the school against the father of respondent No.3 namely Dr. Ramesh Prasad Dwivedi, Teacher (presently suspended) working in the school, alleging award of corporal punishment to the students whom he detained. On receipt of the said complaint, the matter was enquired by a committee and after due enquiry, though preliminary, the fact of award of corporal punishment was found proved and ultimately, in the interest of the students, the matter was referred to Police Station Newai, District Durg where Dr. Ramesh Prasad Dwivedi - father of respondent No.3 was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 354 & 354A of the IPC and Sections 11(1) & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the POCSO Act') in which petitioners No.1 to 3 stood as witnesses. But during the course of trial, respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC alleging that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 23(1) & (2) of the POCSO Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, 'the IT Act'), as they have subjected the victim / students to videography disclosing the identity of the victim(s) which is barred under Sections 23 (1) & (2) of the POCSO Act and Section 67 of the IT Act. It was also submitted in the application that the matter was reported to the press and complaint was also made to Police Station Newai, Durg and to the Inspector General of Police, Durg by memo dated 4-12-2016 and to the Superintendent of Police on 6-12-2016, but no action has been taken leading to the filing of application before the Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) by order dated 20-3-2017 considered the application and granted the same by directing registration of FIR against the petitioners and consequent investigation and to file final report / closure report before the Court. Feeling aggrieved against that order, this instant writ petition has been filed stating that there is no compliance of Section 154(1) & (3) of the CrPC and that without applying its judicial mind in a most casual and cavalier manner, the order directing registration of FIR has been passed which runs contrary to law. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Return has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 / State stating inter alia that since the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Section 23(1) & (2) of the POCSO Act and Section 67 of the IT Act, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as only registration of FIR and enquiry has been directed against the petitioners.

5. Detailed return has also been filed on behalf of respondent No.3.

6. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), without ensuring the compliance of the provisions contained in Section 154(1) & (3) of the CrPC, has directed for registration of FIR by a most unreasoned and non-speaking order and there is total non-compliance of the provision contained in Section 154(3) of the CrPC. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Priya