P.H. Jayani 13 WP2024.2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2024 OF 2018 Ramchandra Vaishnav …. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr. …. Respondents None for the Petitioner. Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ. DATED : 04th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C. :- . The present Petition is filed challenging the Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane on 05/02/2018 in Criminal Revision Application No.94/2017 where the Applicant was aggrieved by the refusal of the JMFC, Thane to entertain an Application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and by Order dated 02/05/2017, the Magistrate has disposed of the complaint. 2) The Complainant was aggrieved by the fact that the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and though he came to a conclusion that there is a prima facie tampering with the Power of Attorney and inquiry by police authority will serve the purpose, he erroneously rejected the prayer for investigation by police under Section 156(3). 1/3 P.H. Jayani 13 WP2024.2018.doc The Revisional Court, in great detail, discussed the order passed by the Magistrate and also followed the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court while entertaining an Application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code as set out in the decision of the Apex Court in case of Gulab Chand Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. and Ors.1, where the guidelines have been specifically issued as regards passing of orders under Section 156(3). By applying the aforesaid guidelines, the Revisional Court was of the view that there is a difference between the police investigation to be directed under Section 202(1) of Criminal Procedure Code and the order of investigation under Section 156(3) and the Magistrate did not come to a definite conclusion whether there was a sufficient ground or not for proceeding then he may direct the police investigation or may inquire it into himself. Recording that the reason given by the Magistrate for not passing the order of investigation being the physical custody or custodial interrogation of the accused is not necessary, appear to be erroneous as the Magistrate was not required to see whether the arrest or custodial interrogation is necessary at the time of passing of order under Section 156(3) but what was necessary to record was whether the investigation by police is required. This being not done by the Magistrate, the Revision Application 1 (2002) SC Crl.L.J. 2907 2/3 P.H. Jayani 13 WP2024.2018.doc was allowed and the order passed by the Magistrate was set-aside and he was directed to re-consider the complaint/application in the light of the observations of Apex Court in the case of Gulab Chand Upadhyaya (supra). 3) The impugned order having being passed on 05/02/2018 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge had directed the Magistrate to consider the Application in light of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, we can only hope and trust that the Magistrate had complied with the said directions as it is not brought to our notice that there are any further proceedings filed by the Applicant before the Magistrate alleging its non- compliance. 4) Today, even the Applicant who is the accused and against whom investigation was directed to be conducted is also not before us, which itself is indicative of the fact that the Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane on 05/02/2018 has ensured compliance. 5) In the wake of the aforesaid, we dispose of the Writ Petition. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) 3/3 PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2025.11.07 19:11:34 +0530