Court affirmed that Magistrate can order further investigation, but not after charges have been framed without compelling justification.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

1. The only issue arisen in this Application is “whether the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in ordering further investigation on the application of the Complainant particularly when charge is framed.” The said order was passed on 14^th December 2018 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai in Case No.771/PW/2010. Earlier, there was an order of ‘issuance of process’ for the offences under Sections 420 , 418, 465, 468, 471, 506(II), 201 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (“IPC”). This was issued on 7^th August 2010. By passing the said order, the learned Magistrate on one hand refused to accept ‘A’ summary report given by the Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”), on the other hand, issued a process. All these orders came to be passed in a private case instituted by Respondent No.2 (hereinafter will be referred to as “the Complainant”). Whereas, the present Applicant is one of the person against whom, process was issued. (He will be referred as an Accused). Whereas, partner Sudha Kalantry has filed an Intervention Application No.295 of 2022. Process is also issued against her. But no one has argued on her behalf.

2. There is a chequered history to this litigation. It will be referred in due course. I have heard learned Senior Advocate Shri.Ponda for Applicant in both the Criminal Applications, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and learned Advocate Shri.Subhash Jha for Respondent No.2 in both the Criminal Applications. Both the Counsels have relied upon various judgments of several High Courts and of Supreme Court. They are on the point of power of Supreme Court and of High Court to order further investigation. They also deal with the issue, the stage at which such power can be exercised. It is true that they also deal with who can ask for further investigation. They will be considered at a subsequent stage. The facts which are required for deciding the issue need to be stated.

Facts of the case

(a) The Complainant runs a business in the name and style as “M/s.Presto Export Ltd.” whereas the Accused runs a business in the name and style as “M/s.Twist Spin Industries”. The Accused is in business of textile machinery. The owners are Accused No.1–Kiran, Accused No.2–Sudha and Accused No.3–Dinesh.

(b) The Complainant has purchased some textile machinery from the Accused and there are other business transaction.

(c) The Accused in the name of his firm has submitted a bid for sick factory having trade name “Devagiri Mills” at Aurangabad. He represented to the Complainant that he is having good contacts in Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Ltd. It is the case of the Complainant that an Agreement was executed between the Complainant (M/s.Presto Exports Ltd.) and the Accused persons (M/s.Twist Spin Industries) on 1 s t July 2003 . The Accused has agreed to transfer ownership of the company in favour of the Complainant.

(d) M/s.Presto Exports Ltd. (Complainant) have issued 2 cheques of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.35,00,000/- in favour of M/s.Twist Spin Industries (Accused) on account of earnest money to be paid to Maharashtra State Textile Corporation and also consultancy fees to the Accused.

(e) The Accused participated in the tender process and bid was accepted for Rs.7,51,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty One Lakh) and Rs.75,10,000/- (R