SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 315

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2011
Decided on : 20-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :S.R. Setia, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):K.K. Mani, M. Yogesh Kanna, Raja Rajeshwaran S., Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mere pendency of civil proceeding is not a good ground and justification to not register and investigate an FIR if a criminal offence has been committed.
(2) High Court cannot direct Police to register FIR and submit final report.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 156(3) and 173 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 403, 406, 408, 418(i), 420, 424 and 465 – Criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery – Direction to register FIR – First respondent was removed from service as she was found guilty of fraud and forgery – Mere pendency of civil proceeding is not a good ground and justification to not register and investigate an FIR if a criminal offence has been committed – If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then remedy of aggrieved person is not to go to High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, but to approach Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – High Court could not have directed registration of FIR with a direction to police to investigate and file final report – Direction of High Court for registration of FIR and investigation into the matter by police set aside – This order would not be an impediment in way of first respondent filing documents and papers with police pursuant to complaint and police on being satisfied that a criminal offence is made out would have liberty to register FIR – It is also open to first respondent to approach court of Metropolitan Magistrate if deemed appropriate and necessary – Equally, it will be open to appellants and others to take steps to protect their interest. (Paras 4 to 9)

Facts of the Case:

Impugned order dated 06.01.2010 passed by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 11620 of 2009 filed by S. Janaki, the first respondent before us, directs the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar, Trichy to register a case, that is, First Information Report, on the basis of the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and after investigation file the final report in accordance with law.

Findings of the Court:

It is also open to the first respondent to approach the court of the metropolitan magistrate if deemed appropriate and necessary. Equally, it will be open to the appellants and others to take steps to protect their interest.

Result : Appeal Partly allowed

ORDER :

The impugned order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 11620 of 2009 filed by S. Janaki, the first respondent before us, directs the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar, Trichy to register a case, that is, First Information Report, on the basis of the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and after investigation file the final report in accordance with law.

2. Aggrieved, Mr. M. Subramaniam and Mr. R.V. Prasanna Venkatesan who were not even made parties to the aforesaid Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 11620 of 2009 have filed the present petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. By order dated 12.03.2010, the permission to file Special Leave Petition was granted and notice was issued. On considering the facts and assertions made, it was directed that in the meanwhile operation of the impugned judgment would be stayed.

3. In spite of the aforesaid stay, it appears that the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar, Trichy on 05.04.2010 had registered an FIR in Crime No. 7 of 2010 under Sections 403, 406, 408, 418(i), 420, 424 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the two appellants and three others. During the course of the hearing before us, the appellants have produced a copy of the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 5195 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010 filed by the appellants and three others against the two respondents. By this order, the petition was partly allowed with the direction that the aforesaid case registered as Crime No. 7 of 2010 will be treated as closed. In the event of this Court dismissing the present S.L.P., the police would proceed with the investigation in Crime No. 7 of 2010 and take it to its logical conclusion by either filing charge-sheet or a final closure report as the case may be. It stands specifically directed that the police would not proceed further with the investigation till the decision of the present S.L.P.

4. As per the appellants, the first respondent was one of the trustees in ADS Educational Trust which was founded in 1985 for the purposes of giving and promoting education. The trust had started Sri Angalamman College of Engineering and Technology at Trichy in 1987. The first and second appellants before us are the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman respectively of this College. The appellants have submitted that the first respondent has no locus standi to file a criminal complaint and the complaint is intended only to wreak vengeance in view of the civil dispute, which is pending between the parties. The first respondent, it is alleged, was removed from service as she was found guilty of fraud and forgery.

5. While it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellants on the question of locus standi, we are inclined to accept the contention that the High Court could not have directed the registration of an FIR with a direction to the police to investigate and file the final report in view of the judgment of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 in which it has been inter alia held as under:

    “11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investig


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top