Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.
Hari Prasad Kedia
vs.
The State and Ors.
C.R.R. 29 of 1996
Decided On : December 17, 1997
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 156(3) - INVESTIGATION - QUASHING - POWER OF HIGH COURT - SCOPE AND EXTENT - INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - CANNOT BE QUASHED BY EXERCISING THE INHERENT POWER OF THE HIGH COURT UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION FALLS UNDER THE GUIDELINES ENUMERATED IN THE CASE REPORTED IN AIR 1992 SC 604.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, Ram Niranjan Kedia, and the accused petitioner, Hari Prasad Kedia, are members of a wealthy business family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. They live in the same premises in Calcutta but reside separately. The complainant's adoptive father died in 1942, and his uncle, Tansukhrai Kedia, took over as the senior member of the Joint Hindu Undivided Family. In 1952, Tansukhrai Kedia opened a bank locker in Allahabad Bank, Calcutta, with the consent of the complainant's adoptive mother, Smt. Purni Devi Kedia. The locker was intended to be a family locker. The complainant and his adoptive mother deposited gold and other valuable ornaments worth Rs. 10,00,000/- in the locker. After Tansukhrai Kedia's death in 1958, his wife, Sabitri Devi Kedia, informed the complainant and his adoptive mother that the locker would be opened only in their presence. However, the accused petitioner, Hari Prasad Kedia, filed an application before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, seeking a letter of Administration of the estate of Tansukhrai Kedia in respect of the locker. He obtained an ex parte order in his favor and removed all the gold ornaments from the locker, allegedly misappropriating them. The complainant filed a petition of complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging that the accused petitioner had committed offenses punishable under Sections 120B/406/420 IPC. The Magistrate ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, treating the petition of complaint as an FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could not be quashed by exercising the inherent power of the High Court unless the investigation fell under the guidelines enumerated in the case reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. The High Court found that the impugned investigation did not fall under any of the guidelines and that any observation made by the High Court might affect either of the parties at any stage. Therefore, the High Court refrained from making any further observation in the matter.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court can quash an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by exercising its inherent power? 2. Whether the impugned investigation falls under the guidelines enumerated in the case reported in AIR 1992 SC 604?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court can quash an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by exercising its inherent power only if the investigation falls under the guidelines enumerated in the case reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. 2. The impugned investigation did not fall under any of the guidelines enumerated in the case reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the application seeking to quash the investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.
This application under s. 482 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused petitioner Hari Prasad Kedia is directed for quashing the investigation carried on pursuant to an order dated 26.9.95 passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under s. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. forwarding the petition of complaint filed before him by the complainant Ram Niranjan Kedia who is the opposite party No. 2 before this court, to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (1) Detective Department Calcutta, for causing investigation, treating the complaint as FIR which has been recorded as section 'D'(DD) case No. 444 of 1995 and was under investigation by the Anti-cheating Section, Lalbazar, Calcutta.
2. By order dated 5.1.96 this court on the said application, the matter was directed to be heard as a contested application and the said investigation has remained stayed.
3. Heard the learned counsels for all the parties, perused the records.
4. It appears from the contents of the said petition of complaint that the complainant Ram Niranjan Kedia and the accused petitioner Hari Prasad Kedia belong to a very opulent business family of Calcutta and are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and are residents of the same premises at P-3, Kalakar Street, Calcutta-7 although living separate in mess having Joint-ancestral property comprising of immovable properties including house properties in posh business areas of Calcutta and movable including diamond studded ornaments worth lakhs of rupees besides other valuable properties. The complainant Ramniranjan Kedia was the sone of Tansukhari Kedia by his first wife Godabari Devi and after the death of Godabari Devi, Tansukhari Kedia married Sabitri Devi and the accused petitioner Hari Prasad Kedia is the son of Sabitri Devi, 2nd wife of Tansukhrai Kedia but the complainant Ramniranjan Kedia was taken in adoption by Purni Debi Kedia, wife of Mahendra Lal Kedia, elder brother of Tansukhari Kedia as the couple had no male child and accordingly the relationship of step-brother between the accused Hari Prasad Kedia and the complainant turned into cousins after the said adoption.
5. It has been alleged in the petition of complaint that the complainant's adoptive father expired in 1942 and thereafter the complainant's uncle Tansukhrai Kedia acting as the senior member of the Hindu Undivided Family was looking after the interest of the entire family business and in 1952, the said Tansukhrai Kedia, since deceased, opened a Bank-locker in Allahabad Bank at P-14, India Exchange Place, Calcutta-1, Main Branch, after thorough discussion/consultation with the complainant's adoptive Mother Smt. Purni Devi Kedia who expired on 27.1.92 and with the consent and approval of Smt. Purni Devi Kedia the locker was taken as a family locker.
6. It has been further alleged that prior to opening of the said locker in the Bank, Tansukhrai Kedia convinced the complainant and Smt. Purni Devi Kedia to deposit their gold ornaments in the said locker, and accordingly, as Tansukhrai Kedia was the 'Karta' and head of the Joint family and the adoptive father of the complainant was already dead, the complainant and his adoptive mother Smt. Purni Devi Kedia deposited the total gold and other valuable ornaments valued at about Rs. 10,000,00/- (Rupees ten lakhs) belonging to them in the said locker being No. C 342 and after the complainant attained majority the said Tansukhrai Kedia empowered the complainant to operate the said locker and the complainant was operating the said locker being No. C 342 prior to the death of Tansukhrai Kedia who died on 7th June, 1958 without settling about the fate of the said locker. Thereafter Sabitri Devi Kedia gave a letter dated 23.12.1988 to the complainant and his adoptive mother Purni Devi Kedia informing that the locker would be opened in presence of the complainant and Purni Devi Kedia and not otherwise and thereafter a registered agreement was made regarding the d
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
