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

2023 Supreme(Ker) 840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
Udayakumar S/o Haridas – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 4592 of 2022
Decided On : 24-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.S. Praveen.
For the Respondents: T. Ramprasad Unni, S.M. Prasanth, T.H. Aravind, Renjit George, Aswini Sankar R.S.

Interference with police investigation should be limited to exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:- Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156, Section 173(2), Section 200 - The court discussed the powers of the police to investigate cognizable offenses under Section 156 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the investigation is the province of the police. It highlighted that interference with the investigation should only occur in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice. The judgment also cited precedents such as Johny Joseph vs. State of Kerala and HDFC Securities Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra to support its analysis.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings based on a complaint forwarded by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., arguing that the transaction was purely civil in nature.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that challenging the investigation process initiated by the police before collecting details as to the commission of the alleged offense was premature.

Issues:

Whether a person accused in a crime registered based on a complaint from a Magistrate can challenge the investigation process initiated by Police before being charged for a cognizable offense.

Ratio Decidendi:

Interference with police investigation should only occur in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Final Decision:

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed as premature.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, who is arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 245 of 2022 of Ayiroor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, filed this Crl. M.C. to quash the proceedings in Annexure-B FIR.

2. Annexure-B FIR was registered on the basis of a private complaint preferred by the 3rd respondent herein before JFCM-I, Varkala, which was forwarded to SHO of Ayiroor Police Station for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner would submit that, the transaction involved is purely civil in nature, and so, criminal prosecution will not lie based on that complaint. So, his prayer is to quash Annexure-B FIR, and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

4. The short and interesting question to be answered in this case is, can a person who was arrayed as an accused in a crime registered on the basis of a complaint forwarded from Magistrate Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. can challenge the investigation process initiated by Police, even before collecting details as to the commission of the offence alleged, and before charging him for a cognizable offence.

5. Section 156 Cr.P.C. reads thus:

“156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case:

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.”

6. Section 156 of Cr.P.C. envisages investigation by a Police officer regarding cognizable offences either with the order of a Magistrate or without the order of a Magistrate. Section 156(2) is applicable to the investigation undertaken under clause (1) and clause (3) as well. As per clause (2), no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

7. As we know, investigation is the province of police. In order to find out the truth, they have to investigate the case by collecting materials, without any interventions or inhibitions. On investigation, if commission of a cognizable offence is made out, the investigating officer is bound to file final report charging the offender for the offences committed by him. When no offence is made out during investigation, then also the investigating officer will send a final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional court, with a request to close it treating the complaint/First Information Statement, as false or on mistaken fact. When a complaint is investigated by Police, on the basis of a direction given by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. even if the Police refer the case as false or mistaken, then also the complainant can pursue the matter further, as per Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

8. When a crime registered by the Police on the basis of a complaint forwarded by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is pending investigation, it cannot be said that the person arrayed as an accused in the FIR is aggrieved by registering that crime. When a complaint is forwarded by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation, the SHO concerned is duty bound to register a crime and to investigate the matter. Column 7 of the printed FIR asks for the details of the known/ identifiable/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars. The name of the petitioner is shown in column 7 of Annexure-B FIR, as he was the respondent in Annexure-A complaint forwarded to the Police Station

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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