Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Ramavtar Agrawal S/o Satyapal Agrawal - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through In-Charge Of Police Station Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRMP No. 1150 of 2015
Decided On : 07-09-2021
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XIV - Chapter XV - Chapter XII - Section 2(c), 2(d), 2(h), 151, 154, 156, 156(3), 162, 167(2), 173, 173(2), 190, 190 (1) (b), 200, 202, 202(1), 245, 397, 401, 482 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226/227 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections Section 34, 120B, 420, 467, 468, 409, 471, 477-A – Whether petitioners have alternate remedy of filing Criminal Revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before Sessions Judge – Whether order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate directing for registration of FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409, 471, 477-A IPC read with Section 34, 120B IPC is in consonance with provisions of Section 156(3) or not - Whether such revision would be held maintainable when Magistrate only directs registration of FIR - Whether both FIRs relate to same incident and to same occurrence, are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences - Whether version of second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes - Whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed further
Findings of the Court :
No, Exercise of revisory power conferred by Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code would occasion when there is an order passed by competent court, which is not interlocutory in nature - Power cannot be exercised to quash FIR or investigation because such power can be exercised only by High Court under section 482 of the code or under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India - If revision application is considered to be maintainable before Sessions Court against an order passed by Magistrate under Section 156 (3) and if such revision is allowed it would have effect of quashing FIR - If Sessions Court has no such powers, it cannot do so by entertaining a revision against an order passed by Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Code - If the answer falls in first category, second FIR may be liable to be quashed - Second FIR is permissible - This judgment clearly spells out distinction between two FIRs relating to same incident and two FIRs relating to different incident or occurrences of same incident - But Magistrate need not order any such investigation if he proposes to take cognizance of offence - Once he takes cognizance of offence he has to follow procedure envisaged in Chapter XV of Code - Section 202(1) of Code would convince that investigation referred is of a limited nature - Magistrate can direct such an investigation to be made either by a police officer or by any other person - This can be discerned from the culminating words in Section 202(1) or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for purpose of deciding, there is sufficient ground for proceeding - This is because he has already taken cognizance of offence disclosed in complaint, and domain of case would vest with him.
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition partly allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur in Criminal Case CA No. 3479/2015 (Veerendra Pandey vs M/s Ramavatar Agrawal Road Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Others) by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directed the police station In-charge Surajpur to register FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409, 471, 477-A IPC read with Section 34, 120B IPC against the accused M/s Ramavatar Agrawal Road Construction Pvt. Ltd. with directors 'Shri Ramavtar Agrawal, Shri Bajrang Lal Agrawal, Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Shri Satyapal Agrawal, Smt. Premlata Devi, Smt. Shashi Devi and Smt. Saroj Devi,' Shri U.P. Tiwari, Executive Engineer, Shri B.P. Singh, Executive 4 Engineer, Shri K.S. Bhandari, Executive Engineer, Shri R.D. Jain, Executive Engineer, Shri D.K. Bhumerkar, Executive Engineer, Shri G.R. Sakare, Assistant Engineer, Shri K.K. Sahu, Sub-engineer, Shri R.C. Soni, Sub-engineer, Shri Harendra Singh, consultant, Shri Abhiram Sharma, consultant, Shri P.C. Singh, consultant, Shri Sanjay Kumra Sahu, consultant, Shri Navdip Chandra Ghosh, consultant, Shri Arun Kumar, consultant and unnamed then Superintendent Engineer, Surajpur, Shri Rohit Yadav, then Collector, Surajpur and directed that order be complied with within 7 days and thereafter the learned Chief Judical Magistrate has directed to fix the case on 13.11.2015 for submission of copy of FIR.
2. The brief facts projected by the petitioners are that the complainant/respondent No. 2 filed complaint on 08.07.2015 against the petitioners and other accused persons under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409, 471, 477-A IPC read with Section 34, 120B IPC mainly contenting that complainant is an Ex- President of Chattisgarh Finance Corporation and working as social activist. M/s Ramavatar Agrawal was alloted tender for construction of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna District Surajpur vide tender accepting order dated 26.04.2008 and thereafter agreement was executed on 14.05.2008 for the tender valued 1465.40 Lakhs. In the construction, the contractor submitted the forged bill of Bitumin Emulsion and received huge amount. He has also submitted details of the bill. As per the complaint, the contractor has not used these materials and submitted forged bills, therefore, committed offence as mentioned in the complaint. It has also been contended by the complainant that the public servants without discharging their responsibility by verifying the same have misused their post and also committed the breach of trust, involved in criminal conspiracy, therefore, they have released the payment treating the bill as true and correct. There is, prima facie, evidence available on record that the contractor and public servants have committed criminal offence and have caused loss to the exchequer. He would submit that against the applicant and other accused persons offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 409, 471, 477-A IPC read with Section 34, 120B IPC has been registered and 5 police were directed to investigate the matter and submit final report before the court for further trial of the case.
3. The complainant has submitted his affidavit on 31.08.2015 before the learned Chief Judaical Magistrate, on the same date, counsel for the petitioner –M/s Ramavtar Agrawal Construction company submitted reply to the complaint. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as per the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. has observed that since the complaint has not been registered, therefore, there is no occasion for the accused to appear before the Court and to make submission. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 21.09.2015. On 21.09.2015, the matter could not be heard and adjourned to 09.10.2012. On 19.10.2015, arguments were heard and fixed the case for order on 05.11.2015. Considering the materials placed on record he has passed the following orders
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
