2009(6) Supreme 60
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Kishan Lal — Appellant
versus
Dharmendra Bafna & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2703 of 2008)
Decided on : 21-07-2009
(2008) 8 SCC 300; 2009 (7) SCALE 214; (2008) 2 SCC 409; 2009 (7) SCALE 559 – Relied upon.
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173(2) – Further investigation – Scope and ambit. (Para 11)
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173 – Investigation carried by two specialized agencies – Order of further investigation vague – Not tenable – Other remedies like invoking section 319 could be resorted to. (Para 13)
Facts of the case :
1. On or about 30th December 2005, a complaint was lodged by the appellant against Accused Nos. 1 to 9 before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Chennai alleging that they connived together from the beginning and cheated him a sum of Rs.4.65 crores by denying to return the money which was given to them for purchase of gold.
2. On or about 12th January 2006, an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the High Court was filed by all the accused stating that the Accused Nos. 5 to 8 are brothers and are the directors of their family business known as M/s Surana Corporation Limited. It was admitted that the Accused No.2 is the sub-agent of Surana Corporation Limited who introduces investors.
3. On or about 8th October, 2007, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai only against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B, IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the said accused.
4. On or about 29th October 2007, on the premise that the learned Magistrate had not taken cognizance against the other accused, the appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court for setting aside the said order. The said application was disposed of.
5. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the observations of the High Court, appellant filed an application for further investigation before the learned Magistrate and by an order dated 13th February 2008, a direction for further investigation was issued.
6. Accused No.2 filed revisional application thereagainst before the High Court which has been allowed.
Finding of the Court :
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. Jurisdiction of a Magistrate to direct reinvestigation of a case from time to time as laid down under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) is the question involved in this appeal. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 13th March, 2008 passed by a learned single judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 245 of 2008 allowing the criminal revision application filed by the respondent No.1 from an order dated 13th February, 2008 passed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
3. Indisputably, on or about 30th December 2005, a complaint was lodged by the appellant against Accused Nos. 1 to 9, namely, Lakshmichand Bafna (Accused No.1), Dharmendra Bafna (Accused No.2), Mahendar Bafna (Accused No.3), Rakesh Bafna (Accused No.4), G.R. Surana (Accused No.5), Shantilal Surana (Accused No.6), Vijayaraj Surana (Accused No.7), Dinesh Chand Surana (Accused No.8) and Maran (Accused No.9) before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Chennai inter alia alleging that they connived together from the beginning and cheated him a sum of Rs.4.65 crores by denying to return the money which was given to them for purchase of gold. It was alleged that the amount was entrusted on various dates from 06th October 2005 to 17th November 2005. Although they have admitted the liability to the extent of 4.95 crores, but did not return either any gold or money to the complainant.
4. On or about 12th January 2006, an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the High Court of Madras was filed by all the accused stating that the Accused Nos. 5 to 8 are brothers and are the directors of their family business known as M/s Surana Corporation Limited. It was admitted that the Accused No.2 is the sub-agent of Surana Corporation Limited who introduces investors.
5. A First Information Report (“FIR”) was lodged by the appellant against all the accused on or about 22nd January, 2006 in the Central Crime Branch Station.
Allegedly, on or about 27th January 2006, in the aforementioned bail application, the said accused filed statement of accounts of the appellant/de facto complainant mentioned in the Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited (“MCX”) which is a Government approved On-Line Trading Exchange of Bullion, Energy, Metal and Oil, admitting that they had undertaken bullion trade with MCX by using the appellant’s money. Apart from the said FIR, the parties have filed some Civil Suits also. Indisputably, however, Banwarlal Sharma (Accused No.10) was subsequently added. It is furthermore not in dispute that the investigation was transferred to CBCID, Chennai by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.
On or about 8th October, 2007, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai only against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the said accused.
On or about 29th October 2007, on the premise that the learned Magistrate had not taken cognizance against the other accused, the appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court for setting aside the said order. The said application was disposed of by the learned single judge of the High Court in the following terms:
“8. Therefore in the considered view of this order, the above criminal original petition can be disposed of with the following directions:-
The petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate petition before the III Metropolitan Magistrate,George Town, Chennai, incorporating his grievances and the alleged lapses on the part of the investigating agency and seek further investigation in the case. On such petition being filed, the learned Magistrate, shall consider the same in accordance with law and if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that a case has been made out by the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.