Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 567

REVATI MOHITE DERE, N. J. JAMADAR, SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
Arun P. Gidh – Appellant
Versus
Chandraprakash Singh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Juggal Kanani, Priya Pervi, Pradeep Rane and Mahadeo Sherekar, i/b Akshay Kapadia, for the Petitioner in WP/2517/2022, WP/2518/2022, WP/2519/2022 and WP/2520/2022.; Dr. Nilesh Pawaskar, a/w Mr. Neeschey Dixit, Ms. Sudha Dwivedi, Mr. Prashant Trivedi, Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Irfan Khan, Ms. Khushboo Jain, i/b Sudha Dwivedi and Asso., for the Petitioner in WP(St)/10232/2023., Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate, a/w Gopal Shenoy, M. S. Federal, Mr. Veer Ashar and Mr. Aaroha Kulkarni, for the Intervenor/Applicants in IA 2951/2023 in WP(St)/10232/2023, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, i/b Pavan Patil, Mr. Pranit Kulkarni Namitkumar Pansare, for Respondent No.1 in WP/2519/2022., Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate, a/w Ekta Tyagi, Mr. Vikrant Singh Negi, Pratik Thakkar and Anjali Shah, i/b DSK Legal for Respondent No.3 in WP(St)/10232/2023, Mr. A. S. Rao with Mr. R. V. Dighe, for Respondent Nos.11 to 13 in WP/2517/2022, for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in WP/2518/2022 and for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in WP/2520/2022, Mr. Drupad Patil with Mr. Suyash Sule for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 15 to 18 in WP/2517/2022, Respondent Nos.6, 8 to 12 and 14 in WP/2518/202, Mr. Karan Kadam with Mr. Ishwar Nankani, Mr. Jagdish Choudhary, Ms. Rhea Sinkar, Ms. Prajakta Sawardekar i/by M/s. Nankani and Associates for Intervener/Applicant In IA 2950 in WP(St)/10232/2023, Mr. Abhay Ostwal i/by Mr. Drupad S. Patil with Mr. Suyash Sule for Respondent Nos.2, 7 to 12, 14 to 16 and 18 in WP 2520 of 2022, Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent/State.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment holds that the remedy of revision under Section 397 CrPC is not efficacious after FIR registration following a Section 156(3) order (Kailash Dattatraya Jadhav lineage) (!) (!) (!) . - It discusses the divergence among Division Benches and ultimately answers that question (i) negatively: revision is not an efficacious remedy after FIR is registered (!) (!) . - It states that the revisional court can interfere with Section 156(3) orders at stage and extent described in paragraph 126, including staying proceedings pre-FIR or post-FIR under certain jurisdictional conditions; however, after charges are filed or cognizance is taken, quashing FIR/prosecution lies in extraordinary writ or inherent powers, not revision (!) (!) (!) . - It clarifies that FIR registration is the police’s statutory duty and that a Section 156(3) order is a reminder/direction to ensure proper investigation, not an inherently final action, but its consequences (FIR, investigation) are real and potentially altered by revisional orders before completion of investigation (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It concludes with answers: (i) revision is not efficacious; (ii) revisional court can interfere at the stage and to the extent described in para 126; the reference is answered accordingly (!) (!) . - The judgment references Priyanka Srivastava (affidavit requirement) and 156(3) procedural prerequisites as part of the illegality analysis (!) (!) .

What is the availability and efficacy of a revision under Section 397 CrPC after an order under Section 156(3) CrPC has directed investigation and led to FIR registration?

What is the extent of revisional court interference with subsequent investigation/proceedings after FIR registration pursuant to a Section 156(3) order?

What is the proper scope of the power of the Court of Session under Section 397/401 to quash FIR or proceedings following the setting aside of a Section 156(3) order?

JUDGMENT

N. J. Jamadar, J. - A question of general importance is posed for consideration in these matters on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court, (R. G. Avachat J.), by a referral order dated 14th February, 2023.

2. In order to appreciate the context in which reference came to be made to a Larger Bench, it may be apposite to note the facts in Criminal WP/2517/2022 as a representative case.

[A] The Reference :

Facts:

3. The petitioner, a former Municipal Councilor of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, lodged a complaint purportedly espousing the cause of the tenants of Manek Colony, which was under re-development. In the complaint, the petitioner alleged that during the period 2004 - 2021, accused Nos.1 to 5/Respondent Nos.1 to 5 were the Municipal Commissioners, accused Nos.6 to 8 were the Assistant Directors, Town Planning and accused Nos.9 to 16 were the then Assistant Town Planners and Engineers and accused No.17 was the developer of the said Manek Colony Re-development Project. The substance of the accusation was that the officers of the Municipal Corporation in connivance with the developer committed various acts of omission and commission resulting in gra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Bom) 567

REVATI MOHITE DERE, N. J. JAMADAR, SHARMILA U. DESHMUKHArun P. Gidh – AppellantVersusChandraprakash Singh – Respondent

What is the availability and efficacy of a revision under Section 397 CrPC after an order under Section 156(3) CrPC has directed investigation and led to FIR registration?

What is the extent of revisional court interference with subsequent investigation/proceedings after FIR registration pursuant to a Section 156(3) order?

What is the proper scope of the power of the Court of Session under Section 397/401 to quash FIR or proceedings following the setting aside of a Section 156(3) order?

Cases Referred (49)

REVATI MOHITE DERE, N. J. JAMADAR, SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
Arun P. Gidh – Appellant
Versus
Chandraprakash Singh – Respondent