IMPORTANT POINT
A Magistrate must provide reasons and apply judicial mind before directing police investigations under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

V. Sujatha, J.

The Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 07.05.2018 in C.F.R. No.1280 of 2018 passed by the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Kamalapuram and the consequential registration of the FIR No.126 of 2018, dated 18.05.2018 by the Station House Officer, Yerraguntla Police Station, for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No.2 herein is the complainant. On 09.04.2018, a complaint was given by the complainant stating that the complainant and both the accused are residents of Yerraguntla town and that the complainant is a lorry owner by profession. In the month of January, 2017, both the accused approached the complainant’s house and stated they are going to run a chit for Rs.20 lakhs having 16 installments and that they would take 4% commission. Having said so, the accused have induced the complainant to join in the chit promising good profits; in pursuance of which the complainant has joined in the chit which started from 20.02.2017. The complainant further stated that he made four others to join in the said chit believing the accused. Accordingly, from 20.02.2017 everyone have started making payments through installments and on 05.07.2017, a second chit was started by the accused luring the complainant and the aforesaid four persons. Subsequently, the complainant got to know that the accused are hiding and when the complainant went to the house of the accused on 26.02.2018 and demanded them to repay the chit amount, the accused have threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is further stated in the complaint that when the complainant has approached the S.H.O. Yeraguntla P.S., for giving complaint against the accused, no action was taken against them. As such, a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, but of no avail. Hence, aggrieved by the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the accused under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C., on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram. Accordingly, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram has passed the impugned orders in C.F.R.No.1280/2018 dated 07.05.2018 forwarding the complaint to S.H.O., Yerraguntla P.S. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and for registration, investigation of the complaint. Pursuant to which, an F.I.R. vide F.I.R.No.126/2018, dated 18.05.2018 was registered at Yerraguntla P.S., for the offences punishable under Section 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the learned Judge has not applied his mind while passing the impugned orders dated 07.05.2018 as he has not taken into consideration whether there are prima facie allegations and material for the alleged offence warranting any investigation by the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the learned Judge has failed to see that the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., can be exercised only if the complaint discloses the commission of the offence. He further stated that as the learned Judge has committed a serious illegality in directing the Police to register a crime, which amounts to taking cognizance of an offence without even prima facie enquiry, the order dated 07.05.2018 in C.F.R.No.1280 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., accordingly, the SI of police examined the complainant and nine other witnesses and recorded their statements.Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing