CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
P. C. BOROOAH, B. N. MAITRA JJ.
JOY KRISHNA CHAKRABORTY AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Criminal Revn. No. 1096 of 1977,
Decided On : 11 -1 -1980
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 156(3), 190(1)(A), 202(1), 202(2) & 203 - COMPLAINT - COGNIZANCE - INVESTIGATION - ORDER OF COMMITMENT - VALIDITY - SECOND COMPLAINT - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of cheating and fraud. The complainant filed a petition of complaint before the S. D. J. M. Arambagh on 19th March, 1976. The Magistrate took cognizance and directed the police to investigate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The police did not comply with the order. On 23rd March 1976, the complainant filed another petition of complaint. The Magistrate again took cognizance and passed an order of commitment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance on the basis of the second petition of complaint. The first complaint was still pending and the Magistrate had no competence or scope to entertain the second one. The order passed by the Magistrate on the 23rd March, 1976, and the later order of commitment in this regard were set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate was correct in first taking cognizance and thereafter directing the police to make an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC? 2. Whether the learned Magistrate was correct in entertaining the second petition of complaint when the first one was very much alive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to order the police to investigate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1) of the CrPC. The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. 2. An order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under Section 156(1) of the CrPC. 3. Once the Magistrate takes cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV of the CrPC, he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of the provisions of Section 156(3) of the CrPC. 4. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the CrPC must be strictly complied with and all the witnesses examined.
Final Decision: The Rule was made absolute and the impugned order was set aside. The Magistrate was directed to proceed from the stage in which he took cognizance on the basis of the first complaint dated 19th March, 1976, in the light of the observations made by the court.
B. N. Maitra, J. :- The allegation is that the opposite party No. 2, Tarapada Sen Gupta, filed a petition of complaint on the 19th March, 1976, before the S. D. J. M. Arambagh. The allegation was that the petitioners held out hope to him that he would get a permit for a bus and they would purchase the same for him. On the faith of that representation, they handed over a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioners. Further the petitioners took various sums of money from many persons on the assurance of providing them with jobs. On that date, the learned Magistrate perused the petition of complaint, took cognizance and directed the O/C of the Khanakul Police Station under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to treat the petition of complaint as F. I. R., to make an investigation and to submit a report by the 10th April, 1976. That order was not complied with. The police did not make any investigation on the plea that they had no jurisdiction because the incident had taken place beyond the jurisdiction of the Khanakul Police Station. Then on the 23rd March 1976, the opposite party filed another petition of complaint before the S. D. J. M. He took cognizance, examined witness and thereafter passed an order of commitment. Hence this revisional application by the petitioners.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Magistrate made a mistake in taking cognizance on the basis of the alleged 'naraji' petition dated 23-3-1976. Cognizance was already taken by him on the first petition of complaint dated 19-3-1976. Moreover, the proviso to Section 202 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not complied with because all the witnesses were not examined. It has, thus, been contended that the learned Magistrate's order is illegal and must be set aside.
3. It has been urged on behalf of the opposite party that though the learned S. D. J. M. purported to take cognizance on the basis of the first petition of complaint dated the 19th March, 1976, an illegal order was passed according to the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to make an investigation by the police. That petitioner died a natural death and the matter has become time barred. The present order of commitment was passed by the learned Magistrate on the footing of the second petition of complaint dated 23-3-1976. There is a distinction between an order of investigation, according to the provisions of ection 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, passed at the pre-cognizance stage, and an order of investigation under Section 202 (1) of the Code. The case of D. Lakshminarayana v. V. Narayana in AIR 1976 SC 1672 has been cited. It has been submitted that since the learned Magistrate passed the order of commitment on the basis of the second petition of complaint, the petitioners can have no grievance.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has stated that he cannot support the second order passed by the learned S. D. J. M.
5. It appears that on 19-3-1976, the first petition of complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate perused the same, took cognizance and passed an order under Section 156 (3) of the Code directing the O/C of the Khanakul Police Station to make an investigation and submit a report.
6. In the case of State of Assam v. Abdul Noor in AIR 1970 SC 1365 at p. 1367, A. N. Ray, J., has stated that a Magistrate can ask for investigation by the Police in accordance with the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before he takes cognizance. The decision, in the case of D. Lakshminarayana v. V. Narayana, does not, in fact, support the opposite party's contention. It appears from the pages 1677 and 1678 of the Report that the power to order the police to investigate under Section 156 (3) of the Code is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202 (1) of the Code. The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage an
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.