Rakesh Saksena, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 3-6-2010, passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal, in case of State of M.P. v. Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan and Ors. whereby application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the Petitioner, was dismissed, the Petitioner has filed this revision.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant Ramesh K. Sahu filed a complaint (Annexure A/11) against Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Chief Minister of State of Madhya Pradesh, his wife and some other persons in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal, alleging illegal and corrupt practices being adopted by them and other persons and amassing huge property by them. According to complainant, to bring facts to light, he submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Bhopal (for brevity 'SPE (Lokayukta)') requesting it to register a case, but SPE did not register the FIR. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid complaint before the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal. He also filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting the Court that the facts narrated by him in the complaint and documents annexed to it established that a case of cognizable nature punishable under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) and Section 32 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was committed. The matter required detailed investigation including seizure of documents from various offices, recording of statement, making Panchnamas and recovery of accumulated disproportionate assets etc. This entire process could be done only by police in exercise of its power of investigation. He, therefore, requested the Court to exercise its power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and direct the Superintendent of Police, SPE (Lokayukta), Bhopal to investigate the matter.

3. Learned Special Judge, by order dated 14-11-2007, in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sent the complaint and annexed documents to SPE (Lokayukta), Bhopal, and ordered it to file a report after enquiry. In compliance of the aforesaid order, SPE (Lokayukta), Bhopal, registered the First Information Report No. 41/2007 (Annexure A/12) under the aforesaid sections.

4. Since no charge-sheet was filed, on 2-6-2010, the Petitioner, a stranger to the pending criminal proceedings, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requesting that SPE (Lokayukta), Bhopal was not taking further steps and was not filing charge-sheet with a view to favour accused persons, therefore, State of M.P. through D.S.P., Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Bhopal, be directed to conclude the investigation within a reasonable time of three months and that an explanation be called from it about the progress of investigation.

5. Learned special Judge, by order dated 3-6-2010, placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Karnataka: AIR 2001 SC 2637 and Union of India v. Prakash Chand Hinduja: 2003 Cri. L.J. 3117 SC, dismissed the aforesaid application holding that the Court was not empowered to interfere in the investigation and to direct SPE (Lokayukta) to file charge-sheet within some prescribed period. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner has filed this revision.

6. Learned Advocate General Shri R.D. Jain, Senior Advocate, and Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Counsel for SPE (Lokayukta) raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this revision contending that the Petitioner had no locus-standi to file any application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special Judge, as he was not a party to the proceeding; he was neither complainant nor an aggrieved person. The proceedings before the Special Court were instituted by complainant Ramesh K. Sahu, who did not make any grievance. Th