KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, JJ.
Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, A
Public Charitable Trust – Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka, By Nandi Giridhama
Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.1422 of 2021 C/W Criminal Petition Nos. 1197/2021, 1219/2021 and 2286/2021
Decided on 22-07-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) If once court of competent jurisdiction did not take cognizance of offences when a complaint was made and said order became final, another complaint on same allegations though filed by complainant in his individual capacity, cannot be said to be maintainable.
(2) Power of attorney holder cannot be treated as a third party, he is agent of complainant, his locus standi cannot be questioned.
(3) Cognizance cannot be taken unless Magistrate arrives at a satisfaction about occurrence of an offence only after going through complaint and examining complainant on oath and witnesses if required.
(4) There is nothing wrong in directing the matter for police investigation on a subsequent date where Magistrate has not taken cognizance till the date of referring the case to police for investigation.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 511 and 120B – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 82 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating and conspiracy – Quashing petition – To constitute an offence under section 420 IPC, transaction in question must indicate that a person has been deceived and induced fraudulently to deliver a property to any person (another person), or to make, alter or destroy whole part of a valuable security or to deliver anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security – To attract offence under Section 120B IPC, there must be agreement between two or more persons for committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, and in furtherance of such an agreement, an act should have been committed – So far as offence under section 511 IPC is concerned, it is just an attempt to commit a crime and if there are no ingredients to invoke Section 420 IPC, offence under Section 511 IPC cannot be invoked at all – Complaint also does not disclose essential ingredients of Section 82 of Registration Act – For invoking section 82 of Registration Act, a person should have made false statement on oath intentionally before an officer under the Act in a proceeding or enquiry – Lease deed does not appear to be a false document; and false statement in it is difficult to be made out – Complainant is a third party to transaction between two trusts and complainant’s locus to file complaint can be doubted – If material facts in instant case are analyzed, it is difficult to say that complaint discloses offences alleged by complainant – Dispute is purely civil in nature – If once court of competent jurisdiction did not take cognizance of offences when a complaint was made and said order became final, another complaint on same allegations though filed by complainant in his individual capacity, cannot be said to be maintainable. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 17, 18 and 19)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 200 – Competency of power of attorney holder of complainant to present complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. – Power of attorney holder cannot be treated as a third party, he is agent of complainant, his locus standi cannot be questioned. (Para 25)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 190 – Cognizance of offence – If Magistrate finds no materials for taking cognizance, process need not be issued to accused and complaint must be rejected – Section 190 Cr. P.C. is empowering provision – It does not prescribe any procedure – It is in Sections 200 to 203 Cr. P.C. that procedure is found – Cognizance cannot be taken by a Magistrate unless he is convinced that there are sufficient materials indicative of an offence having been committed – Purpose of examination of complainant after presentation of complaint is only to gather materials in order to decide whether prima facie case exists or not for taking cognizance – Cognizance cannot be taken unless Magistrate arrives at a satisfaction about occurrence of an offence only after going through complaint and examining complainant on oath and witnesses if required. (Paras 39, 41, 42, 45 and 51)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 156(3) – Direction for Police investigation – Whenever a Magistrate decides to refer a complaint to investigation by police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., he does not take cognizance, he awaits filing of charge-sheet and takes cognizance based on charge-sheet materials – There is nothing wrong in directing the matter for police investigation on a subsequent date as Magistrate had not taken cognizance till the date of referring the case to police for investigation. (Paras 51 and 56)

Result: Petitions allowed.