[2008] 13 S.C.R. 812

KETANKUMAR BABULAL PATEL

KESARBEN JESANGJI AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2008)

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 f- 8 <-·

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM

SHARMA, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.156(3), 202- Comc plaint alleging refusal of police to register an earlier complaint

- Trial court ordered inquiry and report under s.202 - High Court ordered inquiry under s. 156(3) - On appeal, Held: Since order of trial court was not very clear and High Court did not deal with this aspect, matter is remitted to trial court for fresh

D decision.

~· A complaint was filed against certain police officers before the Magistrate on the ground that they had refused to register an earlier complaint filed, and the District Superintendent of Police informed the other party about the E complaint and did not initiate any action against the respondent. The Magistrate ordered for inquiry and report under s.202 Cr.P.C. High Court ordered inquiry under s.156(3) Cr.P.C.

In appeals to this Court, appellants contended that the course adopted by the High Court was impermissible; that once the cognizance has been taken, the procedure in terms of s.156(3) Cr.P.C. could not be resorted to and it has to be in terms of ss.202 and 204 Cr.P.C.; that once the Magistrate held that a prima facie offence was made out, G whether it was right or wrong the only course available was issuance of process, but High Court overlooking that aspect has again directed that modality under s.156(3) to

" be adopted.

H 812

' i ' ~

KETANKUMAR BABULAL PATEL v. KESARBEN 813

JESANGJI & ORS.

Disposing of the appeals and remitting the matter to A trial Court, the Court

HELD: 1. When the information is laid with the Police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under s.190 Cr.P.C. read with s.200 Cr.P.C .. to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having juris- 8

diction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct C the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence for taking further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under s.203 Cr.P.C. In case he finds that the com- D plaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and to issue process to the accused. [Para 9] [816G-H, 817A-C]

Minu Kuma.ri and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2006) 4 sec 359 - relied on.

2. It is not clear from the order of the trial Court as to which of the alternatives, was being resorted to. That would have enabled the High Court to decide as to whether, the report could be made under s.156(3) Cr.P.C.

F [Para 1 O] [817 E-F]

Case Law Reference

(2006) 4 sec 359 relied on Para 9

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal G No. 1509 of 2008

From the Order/Judgment dated 4th/5th August, 2008 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 1060 of 2008 H

A R.F. Nariman, L.N. Rao, MaheshAgrawal, RishiAgrawala, Gaurav Goel, Amit Kumar Sharma and E.C. Agrawala for the Appellant. ,

K.T.S. Tulsi, Dushyant A. Dave, Yatin N. Oza, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, roma Fadelis and Shwetank ._.

B Sailakwal (for Mis. Lawyer's Kant & Co.) for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. c

2. In these appeals challenge is to the judgment of a learned

Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court disposing of several petitions. By the impugned judgment in each case the High Court inter alia directed as follows:

"In the result, the petition is allowed. Order dated 11 .4 .2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Complaint No.103 of 2008 is quashed and set aside. Inquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code is ordered. Complaint be registered as an FIR by the officer in charge of the concerned Police Station for the offences disclosed in the complaint. Rule is made absolute."

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

A complaint alleging commission of offences punishable F under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) which was numbered as Criminal Case No.103 of 2008. The basis of the complaint was that on 29.3.2008 the petitioners in G Special Criminal Application No.1060 of 2008 approached the District Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad requesting him to exercise powers under Section 154 (3) of the Code of Crimi-

,.. .

nal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). But they were ad- .. vised to approach the police station and assurance was given H that they shall get justice. Thereafter, complaint was filed on

KETANKUMAR BABULAL PATEL v. KESARBEN 815

JESANGJI & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

29.3.2008 before the Sarkhej Police Station but the same was A not accepted. It was alleged that the respondents in the complaint were politically very influential persons and were promi- •

nent builders and hence police did not accept the complaint. It

>). was also stated that the District Superintendent of Police instead of helping them to give justice informed the respondent B no.1 in the complaint about the said complaint oh telephone. and did not initiate action against the said respondent as he was a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly and belonged to the ruling party. It was highlighted that if the records of the telephones and mobiles of District Superintendent of Police and c the Police Inspector are called for, it will become crystal clear that such .communications were there. The scripts of the talks between the con.cerned officials and respondent No.1 have to be called for from the mobile companies. An order was passed

' ""

earlier in Special Criminal Application No.918 of 2007. The D Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class passed an order contrary to it by directing as follows:

"This complaint is sent to Sarkhej Police for inquiry and report under Section 202 of Cr. P.C.

Declared in open Court." E

After having held that there exists prima facie offence and connectivity of the accused with it, which is also referred to by the Collector in his order, requisite order was to be passed ..

Several other factual details were also referred to.

4. Learned counsel for. the appellants in each case sub~ mitted that the course adopted by the High Court is impermissible. It is submitted that once the cognizance has been taken, the procedure in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code cannot be resorted to. It has to be in terms of Sections 202 and 204 of G the Code, It is also submitted that once the Magistrate held that a prima facie offence was made out whether it was right or wrong, the only course available was issuance of process which has been directed. But the High Court overlooking that aspect

I has again directed that modality under Section 156(3) to be H

A adopted. It is pointed out that reasons have been given as to why it was felt necessary to have resort to Section 156(3).

5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand with reference to Section 202 of the Code submitted that action was in order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and 8 analyzing the legal position with reference to various decisions the impugned order was passed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the High Court had the jurisdiction available and has die rected inquiry to be conducted. The trial Court could have directed the action under Section 156(3) to be taken. The High Court has acted in accordance with law in directing that Section 156 (3) procedure was to be followed.

7. With reference to the order passed by the Collector vis- D a-vis the power of attorney which forms the subject matter of controversy, it is submitted that records cannot be produced by the private respondents to substantiate the accusations. If the investigation is undertaken by the police, it can certainly take custody of the records and produce to the court as and when E necessary.

8. It is submitted that the Magistrate had three courses open. Once the complaint is filed, it can even after finding that prima facie case exists direct investigation. Secondly, if no offence was made out, to close the proceeding and thirdly to take F cognizance. In the instant case, the trial Court adopted the first course available.

9. In Minu Kumari and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2006

(4) sec 359) the position was highlighted as follows:

G "16. When the information is laid with the Police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the H Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as

KETANKUMAR BABUl,.AL PATEL v. KESARBEN 817

JESANGJI & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate A after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XI I of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to B take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie

discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. c These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in A// India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Reg.) through its President v. Union of India and others (1996 (11) sec 582). It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained.

17. The above position was highlighted in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2004

(7) sec 768)."

10. It is not clear from the order of the trial Court as to which of the alternatives, i.e. the first category or the third cat- E egory was being resorted to. That would have enabled the High Court to decide as to whether the report could be made under Section 156(3) of the Code. Since the order of the trial Court is not very clear and the High Court has not dealt with this aspect, we deem it proper to remit the matter to the trial Court to decide F the matter afresh expeditiously in the light of what has been stated in para 16 of Minu Kumari's case (supra). It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion in that regard ..

11. The appeals are disposed of.

D.G.

Appeals disposed of.