1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15th November 2010, passed on an unregistered Complaint case No.00/2010, preferred by the respondent No.2 Lokendra, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri (M.P.), thereby directing the In-charge Inspector of the Police Station Shivpuri, under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to lodge the FIR and after investigation in the matter submit the report.

2. Facts, in brief, as appear from the petition, are that the petitioner, r/o village Berad, Tahsil Pohari was working as Panchayat Karmil Panchayat Secretary in the Gram Panchayat Goverdhan, Tahsil Pohari District Shivpuri (M.P.). For his long absence due to his involvement in some other criminal case, by Resolution dated 14th November 2004, passed by the village Panchayat Goverdhan, the petitioner was removed from services of Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary and in his place respondent No.2 Lokendra was appointed. The said Resolution was challenged by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer Pohari and by allowing the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 21st August 2006, the impugned resolution was put to an end by the appellate Court. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service. The order of Sub-Divisional Officer was challenged by the respondent No.2 before this Court in several rounds, i.e., Writ Petition No.4536/2006, Writ Appeal No.211/2009. R.P. No.244/2009 and lastly again in Writ Petition No. 1334/2010. All the proceedings as said above, were proved fruitless. Consequently, the respondent No.2 filed the complaint under section 190 of CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shivpuri alleging that during the period of absence w.e.f. 2nd October 2004 to 2nd November 2004, the petitioner was in jail and the false and fictitious medical certificates including of fitness for the aforesaid dates were prepared by the petitioner and produced to prove his bona tide absence. The respondent No.2 alongwith the complaint before the Magistrate filed all those documents. The learned Magistrate by passing the impugned order directed the In-charge Inspector of the Police Station to register the FIR against petitioner and after investigation submit the report before the Court concerned.

3. The petitioner challenged the said impugned order on the grounds that the offences complained in the complaint under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, so the learned Magistrate committed the gross negligence by over-riding the provisions under section 202(1)(a) CrPC and directed the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Shivpuri to lodge the FIR and investigate and then submit the report. The petitioner is in fear that the Inves igating Officer shall cause his arrest for the alleged offence on account of which his services shall be affected adversely. He placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in the cases of Mona Pawar v. High Court of Judicature and others [(2011) 3 SCC 496], Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184]. Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttarwlchal and others [(2008)17 SCC 157], Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another [(2008) 12 SCC 531], Ashok Chaturvedi and another v. Shital H. chaturvedi and another [(1998)7 SCC 698], Ashwin Kumar Roy v. Vipin Bhai and another [(1998) 1 SCC 133], Makru Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and another [(2008) 5 SCC 668], and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [( 1998)5 SCC 749].

4. Thus, on the above grounds, it is contended that the impugned order is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside.

5. The respondent No.2, by filing reply to the petition submitted that the petition is premature. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate is competent to direct the police concerned to make an investigation under section 156(3) of CrPC and submit the final report. It is stated that the matter is under investigation and on receipt of the report from the concernin