Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 12
2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 692 (AP)
In the High Court of Judicature, A.P at Hyd.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
D.K.Pattanaik and another - Appellant
Vs.
The Station House Officer, Nallabelly Mandal, Warangal District and another - Respondent
Writ Petition No.24845 of 2005
Decided On: 17-01-2008
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy.
Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Home for R.1,Sri Mummaneni Srinivas Rao for R.2
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure – Sections 200, 192, 202, 190, 177, 156 – Penal Code – Sections 420, 415 – Jurisdiction – Invalidation of Action – Whether the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by respondent No.2 – Whether the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to prima facie satisfy himself that a cognizable offence has taken place before exercising his power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and, if so, whether Judicial I Class Magistrate, arrived at such a satisfaction before referring the case to Police for investigation – Whether the action of the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, in referring the case to respondent No.1 for investigation and the consequential action of registration of crime against the petitioners are liable to be declared as illegal and invalid – Held, Court has no hesitation to hold that the Judicial I Class Magistrate, had no territorial jurisdiction to receive and forward the complaint filed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 for investigation – Under Section 201 Cr.P.C., if the complaint is made to a Magistrate, who is not competent to take cognizance of the case, he shall, if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect; and if the complaint is not in writing, he shall direct the complainant to the proper Court – It is not known why Judicial I Class Magistrate, has not followed the provisions of Section 201 Cr.P.C., in the absence of anything on record to show that he was satisfied with the endorsement made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 while re-submitting the papers – Court hold that before a Magistrate orders for investigation by Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., he has to apply his mind to know whether the allegations in the complaint, prima facie, make out a case – Court further hold that the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, failed to apply his mind before referring the complaint to Police for investigation – Court is convinced that the allegations contained in the complaint filed by respondent No.2 do not disclose commission of any offence, much less an offence under Section 420 IPC, and that registration of the complaint is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of the Court – Writ Petition Allowed
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime registered under FIR No.78 of 2005 of Nallabelli Police Station, Warangal District, for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, filed this Writ Petition seeking invalidation of action of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Narasampet in forwarding the complaint of respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 for investigation and the consequential action of respondent No.1 in registering the crime. The petitioners also seek restraint order on respondent No.1 from proceeding with the investigation by quashing FIR dated 3-11-2005.
2. The facts to the extent they are relevant are stated hereunder:
Petitioner No.2-Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (for short "the Corporation"), which is a fully owned Government Company, is engaged in the business of refining and marketing of petroleum products, such as, Motor Sprit (MS), High Speed Diesel (HSD), Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Lubricants (Lubes) etc., through out the country. It carries on its business of selling the said products through its dealers, who are selected through a selection process. For the purpose of selecting its dealers, the Corporation laid down selection guidelines. Petitioner No.1 is the Chief Regional Manager (Retail) of the Corporation.
3. In order to appoint some dealers, the Corporation issued notification dated 18-11-2003, whereunder it invited applications from the eligible candidates for awarding retail outlet dealerships at different places. Chegunta of Medak District is one such place, which is notified for this purpose. The said dealership was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Respondent No.2 is one of the applicants for the said dealership and the Corporation issued call letter dated 29-7-2005, wherein he was asked to appear for interview before the Interviewing Committee at 9-30 AM on 18-8-2005 along with all the originals. Along with the call letter, the Corporation sent a brochure with the title "Guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Dealers". The said brochure also contains the guidelines for awarding marks.
4. In pursuance of the said call letter, respondent No.2 appeared before the Interviewing Committee on 18-8-2005, but he was unsuccessful in getting selected. The Committee selected a person, by name, Sri K.Bhaktapal.
5. On coming to know about the non-selection of respondent No.2, he approached the Corporation through his representations dated 29-7-2005 and 22-8- 2005, wherein he complained that the Selection Committee failed to award marks as per the Corporation's guidelines in his favour for holding Law Degree, land, infrastructure and capital. In response to the said representations, the Corporation wrote letter dated 5-9-2005 wherein they called upon respondent No.2 to substantiate his grievances with reference to the documentary evidence. On receiving the documents sent by respondent No.2, the Corporation appointed petitioner No.1 as Investigating Officer to investigate into the allegations made by respondent No.2.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners averred that from a news item published by a Telugu daily newspaper on 06-11- 2005, they came to know that the learned Munsif Magistrate, Narasampet, registered a criminal case against petitioner No.1 and other officers of the Corporation for the offence of cheating and, thereafter, they obtained copy of First Information Report (FIR) dated 3-11-2005. The petitioners further averred that the contents of FIR, which was registered by respondent No.1 discloses that the grievance of respondent No.2 was that as against 15 marks, which shall be awarded for higher educational qualification (Law Degree), he was awarded only 8 marks and that though the Interviewing Committee had the power and discretion to award only to the extent of 40 marks towards educational qualification, capability to generate business,
