The main legal point established is that the Magistrate should not interfere in the investigation process once the FIR has been registered, and procedural lapses can vitiate the entire process.

1. By order dated 22.07.2013, the Metropolitan Magistrate brought the curtain down on the criminal case initiated by the petitioner. The said order was challenged before the court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by filing petition (CR.No.07/2014) but having been upheld by order dated 01.12.2014. The petitioner consequently has come up to this Court praying for exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting the said orders at naught and reviving the proceedings before the courts below.

2. The trial court record was called for in terms of the directions in the previous order. The private party respondents, against whom the criminal action is sought, were duly noticed and have appeared through counsel.

3. On perusal of the record of the criminal case, it is found that the Metropolitan Magistrate has not approached the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint of the petitioner properly or in accordance with law. This would need interference by this Court. The reasons may be elaborated hereinafter.

4. The petitioner had filed the criminal complaint on 30.04.2007 alleging offences punishable under Sections 420/415/467/468/471/474/506 read with Sections 120 B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed by the private party respondents qua the land in respect of which the petitioner (complainant) claims to be the owner on the strength of Sale deed dated 08.12.1999 duly registered and executed by Radhey Shyam. The complainant had prayed primarily for directions to the police to investigate in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and, in the alternative, for the Magistrate to take cognizance, hold inquiry and issue summons. The complaint was registered as criminal case 688/1/2007. The prayer under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, was considered and, by order dated 26.05.2007, the Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the view that it would be appropriate that an action taken report (ATR) be called for from the station house officer (SHO) of police station Narela with regard to the complaint dated 16.05.2006 that had statedly been earlier submitted by the complainant with the police. The ATR was submitted and considered. Finally, by order dated 23.10.2007, the Metropolitan Magistrate directed the first information report (FIR) to be registered and directed the SHO to carry out the investigation. Pursuant to the said order, FIR No. 618/2007 was registered in police station Narela on 29.11.2007 for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 420/468/469/471 IPC.

5. Having directed the police to register the FIR and carry out investigation on the criminal complaint, the role of the court of Metropolitan Magistrate at that stage was over. There was no occasion for the criminal complaint to be kept alive or for periodic reports of the investigation to be called for. It appears, the Metropolitan Magistrate forgot the letter and spirit of the provision contained in Section 210 Cr.P.C. in terms of which any action on his part on the criminal complaint was inhibited so long as investigation by the police was in progress. Even otherwise, it is trite that once the FIR had been registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the Metropolitan Magistrate ordinarily had no occasion to interfere in investigation unless a special case for this was made out. His role would re-commence once the investigation was complete and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – whatever shape it takes – was submitted.

6. Be that as it may, a report dated 12.05.2009 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by SHO police station Narela before the Magistrate seeking cancellation of the case. Though the report had been prepared in May, 2009, it was actually presented on 19.05.2011, that too after duress processes had been issued against the investigating officer by the Metropolitan Magistrate who had continued to insist on status reports to be s