C.W.P. No.19623 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.19623 of 2008 Decided on :18-11-2008 Uma Gajapati Raju & Others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH. Present:- Mr. Gagan Chhabara, Advocate and Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J The petitioners are the complainants who have lodged First Information Reports (for short 'FIRs') with Gurgaon Police levelling allegations of cheating against respondent Nos.4 to 24. The petitioners include three complainants, who initially lodged F.I.R. within the jurisdiction of Delhi, but by virtue of an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the investigation stands transferred to Gurgaon. The said complainants are also the petitioners in the present case. Earlier, a writ petition was filed by the accused to club all cases arising out of similar complaints into one case and to order investigation into the conduct of the parties. A Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P.No. 4903 of 2007 vide order dated 24.07.2007 passed an order on the basis of consent of the parties including the present petitioners, for entrusting the investigation of the cases to one single officer namely Sh. Satender Kumar Gupta, IPS, DCP (East), Gurgaon. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the Investigating Officer has C.W.P. No.19623 of 2008 -2- sought permission of the learned Illaqua Magistrate, Gurgaon, for seizure of the documents and attachment of land measuring 2128 sq. meters, City Survey No.844/1-4, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai. The learned Magistrate has ordered the attachment. But the said order was challenged by way of a Revision Petition by the accused- Company before the learned Sessions Judge. The order was stayed. However, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.03.2008, set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing an SLP bearing No.2118 of 2008, which has been dismissed on 20.08.2008 along with other petitions filed by the accused-companies. It is the case of the petitioners that before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the stand of the accused was that the dispute between the parties is the civil dispute, therefore, the matter cannot be permitted to be investigated as a criminal offence. It is argued that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the arguments raised by the accused, therefore, it cannot be said that the dispute is of civil nature. It is contended that Investigating Officer has submitted a Cancellation Report on 19.10.2008 under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code which is to the effect that dispute is one of civil nature. In the present writ petition, the petitioners claim further investigation into the matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation and some other agency as it is alleged that Investigating Officer has not carried out investigation fairly and reasonably. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners for some time, we do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the C.W.P. No.19623 of 2008 -3- petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court has passed a consent order, entrusting investigation to Sh. Satender Kumar Gupta, IPS. Having agreed to the investigations to be carried out by the said Investigating Officer, the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that the investigation has not been carried out fairly and reasonably . Still further, the petitioner has the right to appear before the Magistrate before whom the Report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is to be filed or has been filed to protest the acceptance of the Cancellation Report and to raise all such pleas as may be available to the petitioner so as to convince the Trial Court that the matter is in fact, criminal in nature and not a civil dispute as is concluded by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Magistrate in the protest petition shall only order for further investigation by an agency under the control of the State Authorities. The learned Magistrate shall have no jurisdiction to refer the matter for investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. However, we do not find any merit in the said argument as well. Once a Report has been filed concluding the investigations, the subsequent action required on the said report is within the control of the learned Magistrate. It is no doubt correct that Magistrate has no power to refer further investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation. But the fact remains that till such time the Magistrate frames an opinion that the further investigations are required, the argument of the petitioner for such directions cannot be entertained at this stage. In view of the above, we do not wish to interfere in the writ petition at this stage. The same is dismissed with liberty to avail the alternative remedy before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. C.W.P. No.19623 of 2008 -4- However, it is made clear that any observation made by this order shall not be taken into consideration by the learned Trial Magistrate while considering the protest petition. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 18th November 2008. (Nawab Singh) Monika Judge