The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the matter of Madhusudan Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs Mamta Bhardwaj in Criminal Revision No. 826 of 2007 has held that
“Under Section 37 of the Act, the Rules are framed which have been published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt.II Sec. 3(i), dated 17th October, 2006 vide G.S.R. No. 644(E), dated 17th October, 2006. Thus, these Rules framed by Central Government are having statutory force and shall require to be given effect to. Although vide sub-section (3) of Section 37 of the Act the parliament can amend or disagree with the Rules, yet unless such amendment or disagreement comes in existence, the operation of these Rules will remain in force and have to be effective. Perhaps considering the ambiguous situation, that in Section 28(1) of the Act the Legislature has given a mandate to follow the procedure as laid down in Cr.P.C., but the same has not been clarified as to what procedure will be adopted in dealing with the application under Section 12 of the Act, the Rule 6(5) has been framed. It appears that now the ambiguity has been removed by Rule 6(5) in further mandatory words by mentioning, that the application under Section 12 shall be dealt with and order enforced in the same manner as laid down under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
8-C. As observed by the three different Benches of High Court in aforementioned orders in the case of Het Ram (Supra), Sankarasetty Pompanna (Supra) and Pendiyala Sureshkumar Ramarao (Supra) without providing opportunity of leading evidence such application cannot be disposed of. Similar is the procedure required to be adopted to deal with an application under Section 12 of the Act to comply the direction under Section 28(1) of the Act read with Rule 6(5) of the Rules.”
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the aforesaid matter has further held that
“It is also true, that sub-section (2) of Section 28 provides, that nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 of the Act. By cumulative reading of Section 28 sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act and Rule 6 (5) of the Rules, it appears that sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Ac appears to have been enacted looking to the peculiar nature of the Act and also the existence of aforementioned ambiguity with regard to the provision of Section 28(1) of the Act, but now ambiguity has been removed by the Central Government under its powers given by Section 37 of the Act.”