SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Ker) 356

Judges : N.DHINAKAR
P.V.George And Others - Appellant
Versus
Jacob Mathews And Another - Respondent
Case No : Crl. M.C. No. 67 of 1995
Decided On : 12/20/1995
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: B. Raman Pillai and S. Vijaya Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent: T.R. Raman Pillai (Sr.) and P.V. Kunjikrishnan, (for 1).

Once the Magistrate takes cognizance and initiates proceedings under Chapter XV, he cannot revert back to the pre-cognizance stage and order a fresh investigation under Section 156(3), Crl.P.C.

Headnote:

Cognizance - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3), Section 202 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 156(3) and Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and concluded that once the Magistrate takes cognizance and initiates proceedings under Chapter XV, he cannot revert back to the pre-cognizance stage and order a fresh investigation under Section 156(3). The court emphasized the distinction between the pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages and highlighted the purpose of investigations under each section. The order for investigation under Section 156(3) was set aside based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a complaint filed for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The Magistrate initially conducted an inquiry under Section 202, Crl.P.C. and later ordered investigation under Section 156(3), Crl.P.C. This led to a challenge regarding the Magistrate's authority to order a fresh investigation after taking cognizance.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Magistrate's order for investigation under Section 156(3), Crl.P.C. was not justified as it contravened the legal principles established by the Supreme Court. The order was set aside, and the related crime number was quashed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Magistrate, after taking cognizance and initiating proceedings under Chapter XV, could revert back to the pre-cognizance stage and order a fresh investigation under Section 156(3), Crl.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 156(3) and Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code as established by the Supreme Court. It emphasized the distinction between the pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages and the purpose of investigations under each section. Based on these legal principles, the court concluded that the Magistrate's order for investigation under Section 156(3) was not permissible.

Final Decision: The court set aside the Magistrate's order for investigation under Section 156(3), Crl.P.C. and quashed the related crime number. The case was to be disposed of according to law if there were sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint.

Judgment :-

The question to be decided in this Crl.M.C. is whether the Magistrate, after having decided to act and initiated action under Chapter XV of the Crl.P.C. can revert back to Chapter XII of the said Code.

2. A few facts, which need for deciding the abovesaid question can be summarised and stated as follows.

3. Petitioners are A1, A2 and A9 in C.M.P. No. 8654 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Thiruvalla, instituted on a private complaint filed on 19-11-1993 for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34, I.P.C. In the said complaint 9 persons including these petitioners are shown as accused. A7 and A8 are the daughters of A1 and A2. A9 is the other daughter. A3 to A6 are the close friends of A1.

4. The allegation in the said complaint is that in order to settle the earlier dispute between the 1st respondent in this petition (complainant in C.M.P. No. 8654 of 1993) and the 1st petitioner, 7 signed blank cheques were given to the 1st petitioner by the 1st respondent on 10-10-1991 as one of the conditions for the settlement of disputes. This handing over of signed blank cheques was at the instance of an advocate, who happens to be a mutual friend of both the parties. According to the complainant/1st respondent 4 cheques were signed by him, two by his mother and one by his daughter. Later, the promise of settlement was not honoured and the 1st accused with the help of the other accused converted the signed blank cheques into the valuable securities by filling up the names of drawees and the amounts. When the said cheques were presented with the bankers they were returned unpaid with the endorsement "insufficient funds". The 4th accused thereafter filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 193 of 1991 before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- and the 3rd accused also filed a Civil Suit before the same Court in O.S. No. 194 of 1991 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. The 5th accused filed O.S. No. 197 of 1991 before the said Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. He also filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla, against the 1st respondent/complainant. The 6th accused filed another compliant before the same Court under the said Act against the 1st respondent's daughter on an allegation that she issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs without sufficient funds. The 4th accused also filed a criminal complaint against the 1st respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- without sufficient funds. According to the 1st respondent/complaint the civil suits and the criminal complaints were laid at the instance of the 1st accused making use of the blank signed cheques earlier given by him on 10-10-1991. It is also averred in the said complainant that A1, A2 and A7 are partners in a business. The sum and substance of the complaint is that all the accused with the common intention committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34, I.P.C.

5. After the complaint was filed on 19-11-1993 the sworn statement as contemplated under Section 200, Crl.P.C. was taken on 8-2-1994. Thereafter the Magistrate decided to conduct an inquiry under Section 202, Crl.P.C. without straightway issuing process to the accused. The case was posted to 19-2-1994 and thereafter to 24-2-1994. On 24-2-1994 the case was adjourned to 7-3-1994 and then to 8-3-1994. The Magistrate directed an investigation under sub-section (1) of Section 202, Crl.P.C. to be conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla. After investigation the Sub Inspector filed a report under the said section before the Magistrate. On 8-12-1994 the learned Magistrate heard the arguments of the 1st respondent and after three postings he forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156(3), Crl.P.C. to the Sub Inspecto














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top