The main legal point established is that the magistrate has the power to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but must apply due diligence, and the court can quash a complaint if it does not disclose a cognizable offence.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of Cr. R. No. 546/2007 Arun Kumar Jain v. Dinesh Tripathi and nine Ors. and M.Cr.C. No. 1580/2008 Madhu Kumar Babu and four Ors. v. State and Ors. A copy of this order be placed in the record of both the cases.

2. The Criminal Revision No. 546/2007 has been filed by the Jain assailing the tenability and viability of the order dated 11.4.2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revisions No. 352/2006, 386/2006 and 389/2006, whereby the order passed by the trial Court dated 3.5.2006, directing the Police to take appropriate steps as per Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure on a private complaint against the accused persons in accordance with law with an intimation to the Court on the next date was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court to pass appropriate orders after due application of mind. Being aggrieved by such direction applicant Arun Kumar Jain has assailed the order impugned in the revision.

3. M.Cr.C. No. 1580/2008 has been filed by the accused persons namely Madhu Kumar Babu, Virendra Singh. B. J. Salunke and Brajesh Mishra under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the private complaint filed against them by Arun Kumar Jain. In the petition it is contended that as per the allegations of the private complaint, on the face of it no offence is made out against them and it has been filed to take vengeance with mala fide intention, however, the complaint filed against them may be quashed. It is also contended that the revisional Court while passing the order impugned after referring various judgments of the apex Court came to hold that while passing the order, exercising the powers tinder Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate ought to have applied his mind on the allegations as alleged in the complaint. If on the face of allegations no offence disclosing cognizable offence is made out then trial Court ought not to apply his mind again, in passing the order in furtherance to the order of revisional Court. Thus, the complaint filed against them may be quashed.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Arun Kumar Jain has filed a private complaint stating that from the year 1996-2000, he was posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police in the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt at Indore and also as in-charge Superintendent of Police. One Mr. Subhash Sojatiya Accused No. 7 was the ex-minister of Information and Public Relation Department. The matter of his elder brother Ashok Sojatiya, who was the Engineering-in-Chief in Water Resources Department, had investigated by him and a charge sheet under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC was filed. Similarly he had also investigated the matter of his younger brother Mr. Kamlesh Sojatiya and the charge sheet under Section Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC was filed against him also. Thus Mr. Subhash Sojatiya has become biased against him and having malign intention. It is averred that Mr. Subhash Sojatiya was very much close to the then Chief Minister Mr. Digvijay Singh, however, due to his intervention he has faced a lot of mental and physical torture. By their intervention he was invariably placed under suspension, and also gave an assurance in the assembly for arrest in a false case registered against him. It is further said that the accused No. 1, 7, 8 and 9 having conspiracy, by meeting of mind with a view to take revenge and an assault over him. It is said that one Dinesh Tripathi accused No. 1 reached in between 7:15 am to 8:00 am at his house in the morning along a pet dog. While reaching in front of his house it is said by him that you have not yet come to rescue to his fault, I have been sent by Mr. Subhash Sojatiya "Mantri" to convey this message to you. T