Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Asish Baran Mukherjee, J.
Ram Mohan Agarwal
vs.
The State & Ors.,
along with
Dilip Chatterjee
vs.
Harpal Agarwal & Ors,
along with
Dilip Chatterjee
vs.
Madho Gopal Agarwal & Ors.
CRIMINAL REVISION C.R. No. 3343 of 1997 with C.R. No. 3366 of 1997 with C.R. No. 3367 of 1997
Decided On : May 12, 1998
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 156(3) - F.I.R. - INVESTIGATION - JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL - OFFENCES COMMITTED IN DIFFERENT PLACES - COGNIZABLE OFFENCES - POWER OF MAGISTRATE - INHERENT POWER - QUASHING OF F.I.R. - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a criminal case, challenged the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, directing the police to investigate the complaint as an F.I.R. under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint alleged cheating, extortion, and criminal breach of trust by the petitioner and others. The petitioner argued that the dispute was civil in nature and that some of the alleged offenses occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Magistrate erred in treating the complaint as an F.I.R. without examining the earlier G.D. entries to determine if they disclosed cognizable offenses. The court found that the G.D. entry dated 30.1.97 satisfied the test of a first information report and should have been treated as the F.I.R. The court also held that the materials gathered during the investigation pursuant to the earlier order of the Magistrate, though set aside, were valid and could be used in the investigation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate erred in treating the complaint as an F.I.R. without examining the earlier G.D. entries? 2. Whether the G.D. entry dated 30.1.97 satisfied the test of a first information report? 3. Whether the materials gathered during the investigation pursuant to the earlier order of the Magistrate, though set aside, were valid and could be used in the investigation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Magistrate erred in treating the complaint as an F.I.R. without examining the earlier G.D. entries to determine if they disclosed cognizable offenses. The court found that the G.D. entry dated 30.1.97 satisfied the test of a first information report and should have been treated as the F.I.R. 2. The court held that the G.D. entry dated 30.1.97 satisfied the test of a first information report. It was exhaustive in nature and contained facts and circumstances which were narrated in the subsequent petition of complaint. 3. The court held that the materials gathered during the investigation pursuant to the earlier order of the Magistrate, though set aside, were valid and could be used in the investigation. The court reasoned that the earlier decision of the court setting aside the Magistrate's order was on technical grounds and did not say that the materials gathered during the investigation were to be disregarded.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Magistrate's order directing the police to investigate the complaint as an F.I.R. and directed the police to start the investigation from the stage at which it was left due to the stay orders from the court.
A.B. Mukherjee, J.
In C.R.R. 3343 of 1997 the petitioner has prayed for quashing the complaint case No. 6/92 of 1997 (G.R. No. 287 of 1997) pending before the ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and also the impugned order dated 4.10.97.
2. The case of the petitioner in short is that opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint before the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta making certain allegations against the petitioner and others and the latter sent the complaint to the officer in charge of Burrobazar P.S. for investigation by a competent officer treating the petition of complaint as an F.I.R, under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts contained in the said complaint which was numbered as C/82 of 1997 in brief is as follows:-One Shyam Mohan Agarwal agreed to sell to the company of opposite party No. 2, 1650 M.T. of wheat at Rs. 550 per M.T. and in pursuance of the agreement 90.5 lacs was sent to Shyam Mohan Agarwal by the said company. Shyam Mohan Agarwal procured wheat from various sources in Uttar Pradesh and kept the same in the business premises of the petitioner. Said Shyam Mohan Agarwal failed to send the wheat to Calcutta even after several representations by the Company. Ultimately, he sent only 643-831 M.T. of wheat to Calcutta which was received by the company. It is alleged that S.M. Agarwal in conspiracy with the present petitioner sold the remaining stock of wheat in poen market. It is further alleged that the accused persons including the petitioner agreed to refund to the company Rs. 54,30,695/- and in pursuance to the agreement the company sent two representatives but on 24.1.97 the representatives who were forcibly taken away from their place where they were staying to an un-known destination and there they were forced to sign some papers written in Hindi and a sum of Rs. 35 lacs by way of demand draft and Rs. 2 lakhs in cash were handed over to the representatives. The accused persons also refused to pay the balance. One of the representatives, namely, Shri Nemai Bar lodged a complaint with Burrobazar Police Station by a G.D. Entry No. 2496 dated 29.1.97. Another written complaint was submitted by Office Manager of the company with Burrobazar Police Station being G.D. Entry No. 2680 dated 31.1.97. Subsequently, the opposite party No. 2 filed another petition of complaint before the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Ld. Magistrate by order dated 14.2.97 directed the Burrobazar Police Station to treat the complaint as F.I.R. if no specific case was earlier started in consequence of the earlier G.D. entries. On receipt of the complaint section D, case No. 88 under sections 120B/420/409/442 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner and three others.
3. One of the accused persons filed a revisional application challenging the continuance of the said proceeding being section D, case No. 88 as well as the order of the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 14.2.97. The said revisional application being 1217 of 1997 was disposed of by Justice N.K. Batabyal (as he then was) who set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 14.2.97.
4. The opposite party No. 2 filed an application before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta praying for sending the previous complaint to the police authority under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Ld. Magistrate by order dated 19.9.97 called for a report from O.C., Burrobazar Police Station about the action taken by the earlier G.D. entries. On receipt of the said report stating that no criminal case was registered on the basis of the said G.D.s the Ld. Magistrate passed the order dated 4th of October 1997 directing the O.C. to get the matter investigated after treating the said complaint as F.I.R.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the agreement was entered into between Shri Shyam Mohan Agarwal and opposite party No. 2 and t
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
