Case: Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corporation Limited Vs. State of Haryana &amp; Another

The appellant which is a State Government undertaking registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is working under the administrative control of the Haryana Government in Agricultural Department. The Secretary of thefiled a criminal complaint before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat against respondent 2 under the Sections 409, 467, 468,of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the second accused committed criminal breach of trust, misappropriated the stock entrusted to him and the defalcated the account books and stock registers, etc. It seems that the complaint was referred to the police for the investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. On the final report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Sonepat city, the learned Magistrate passed the following order on April 11, 1988"In view of the report of the police, accused is ordered to be discharged. File be ordered to be consigned to the record rooms."Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant took up the matter before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Miscellaneous No.of 1988 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 478 of 1989. The High Court by its impugned order dated February 10, 1989 dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petitions on the ground that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate discharging the accused was an "interlocutory order" and that the petition under the Section 482 of the CrPC for the quashing the order of the Magistrate is barred. Hence this appeal3. The High Court in its impugned order has placed reliance on the observation of this Court made in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police ((1985) 2 SCC 537  : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267  : (1985) 3 SCR 942 ). The question in the said case was whether in a case where first information report is lodged and after completion of investigation initiated on the basis of the first information report, the police submits a report that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate can accept the report and drop the proceedings without issuing notice to the first information or to the injured or in the case the incident has resulted in death, to the relatives of the deceased. Besides examining the above question, this Court did not examine the intendment of Section 397(2) of the Code

Court's reasoning:
When the question that has arisen in the present case is examined in the light of the above observations made in Amar Nath case ((1977) 4 SCC 137  : 1977 SCC (Cri) 585 ) and Madhu Limaye case ((1977) 4 SCC 551  : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10 ), it is clear that the order of the High Court is not sustainable and as such is liable to be set aside as the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate does not fall within the definition of the term "interlocutory order" and the inherent power of the High Court is not limited