The main legal point established is the requirement for the Magistrate to pass a speaking order and consider the evidence before directing the registration of a case under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both the matters are interconnected and, therefore, decided by the present common order.

2. M.Cr.C. No. 11083/2015 is filed by the applicant against the order dated 15-9-2014 and consequentially to get the registration of FIR at Crime No. 382/2014 for offence under sections 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code to be quashed. Thereafter a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (M.Cr.C. No. 11084/2015) was filed to stop the proceedings against the applicant under section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Facts of the case, in short, are that the complainant/respondent No. 2 in M.Cr.C. No. 11083/2015, took a loan for purchase of the house in the year 2011-12 for a sum of Rs. 37,71,100/- and on demand of payment of loan, the complainant had issued a cheque bearing No. 534647 dated 25-5-2014 of Rs. 9,21,100/- of Bank of Baroda, Sarafa Bazar, Lashkar and another cheque bearing No. 534648 dated 1-6-2014 of Rs. 28,50,000/- of the same bank was issued. Those cheques were dishonored. The complainant has filed an application under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code that from the very beginning, he was prosecuting his office in the premises of the applicant and two blank cheques were stolen by the applicant. There was no loan transaction between the parties and, hence, there was no question of repayment. The cheques were forged after stealing them and placed before the Punjab National Bank for their payment. Since the complainant did not issue such cheques, he had no such amount available in his account and, therefore, both the cheques were dishonored and a false complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed before the competent Magistrate by the applicant. Thereafter the complainant has filed the application under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code that a forgery was committed by the applicant. The JMFC, Gwalior vide order dated 15-9-2014 accepted the application and directed the SHO, Maharajpura to register the FIR and investigate the matter and thereafter final report be placed before the competent Court. During the investigation, it was found that the applicant was absconding and, therefore, proceedings under section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated against the applicant.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Priyanka Shrivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 and the order passed by the single Bench of this Court in case of Ramyash Tiwari vs. State of M.P., 2013(1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 484 = 2013 (2) MPHT 521 to show that the Magisterial Court while passing the order under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply his mind and without any appropriate evidence, order under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was passed. It is contravention to the guideline given by the single Bench of this Court in case of Ramyash Tiwari (supra).

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent - Aditya Singh Kushwaha has placed his reliance upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in case of Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat, 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 318, Madhao and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another, [2014 (4) CCSC 2049 (SC), Srinivas Gundluri and others vs. S.E.P.C.O. Electric Power Construction Corpn. and others, 2011 (1) CCSC 171 (SC) and Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of M.P. and another, 2002 Cr.L.R. (SC) 221, in which it is held that if complaint under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed before the Magistrate and if he proceeds under sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code then thereafter no direction can be given under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. For issuance of direction under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is for the Magistrate to issue such direction before