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

2022 Supreme(HP) 666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Shaukat Ali S/o. Sh. Masiyat Ali - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Rehana Parveen D/o. Sh. Masiyat Ali W/o. Arshad Ali - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (MAIN) Under Section 482 CR.P.C. No. 729 Of 2021
Decided On : 07-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sh. Servedaman Rathore, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sh. Karan Singh Kanwar, Sh. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Narender Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

Point of Law: Powers to Investigate - Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption : “Information to the Police and their powers to investigate. The power to order police investigation under Section 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1).

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 156 (3), 190, (1)(a), 200, 202, 362, 190 to 199 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 465 and 471 - Prayer to Investigate Allegations - Brief facts necessary for adjudication of petition are that respondent No.1 (filed a complaint before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, with a prayer to direct SHO, Police Station, under Section 156 (3) of Code to investigate allegations made in complaint in accordance with law. Para 17.

Finding of the Court :

It clearly denotes that learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and had then proceeded further firstly by calling for report under Section 202 of Code and on subsequent occasion requiring complainant to lead preliminary evidence - In case in hand Magistrate had taken cognisance as noticed above and then by way of impugned order direction was issued to Police under section 156(3) of Code - Now, if proceedings are allowed to be followed in terms of impugned order, Police will file its report under section 173 of Code before Magistrate requiring him to take cognisance and then Magistrate will be confronted with a situation where he may decide either to take cognisance or not - If he decides to take cognisance on Police report it will amount to taking cognisance second time and if he decides otherwise, it may not be permissible under section 362 of Code - In such a situation, Magistrate is empowered under Section 202 to direct, within limits circumscribed by that section an investigation “for purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding” - Thus object of an investigation under Section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him - In light of above discussion, impugned passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, is set aside with directions to learned trial court to decide matter as complaint case in terms of provisions of Chapter XV of Code - Since disposal of matter has already been delayed inordinately, learned trial court is expected to expedite early disposal of matter.

Result: Petition disposed of.

ORDER :

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 10.11.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 13/2 of 2018, whereby the direction has been issued to register an FIR against petitioner and others for commission of offences under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) filed a complaint before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan with a prayer to direct the SHO, Police Station, Nahan under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) to investigate the allegations made in the complaint in accordance with law.

3. Complainant alleged in the complaint that petitioner was her real brother. A civil suit in respect of immoveable property filed by the petitioner against the complainant and her another brother named Gulam Sabir was pending before the Civil Court at Nahan. Petitioner had failed to obtain interim injunction in the said suit. His appeal against order of rejection of interim application was also dismissed. Having failed to obtain favourable order, petitioner conspired with two other persons named as co-accused in the complaint and manufactured a forged document in the shape of compromise deed dated 14.04.2012. On the basis of aforesaid averments, a prayer was made as noticed above.

4. On 05.05.2018, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan ordered the registration of complaint and called for report under Section 202 of the Code. On receipt of the report of police, the matter was put up for consideration on 30.07.2018. After adjourning the matter on various dates, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate taking notice of the fact that the dispute had roots in a suit pending before the Civil Court, the complaint was transferred to the Court seized of the suit, to decide the same in exercise of its powers as Judicial Magistrate First Class.

5. Thereafter, from 27.09.2018 till 13.08.2019 except for adjourning the matter, from time to time, no effective orders were passed. On 13.08.2019 and 04.09.2019, after hearing the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan directed the complainant to lead preliminary evidence. Again, the matter was repeatedly adjourned for enabling the complainant to lead preliminary evidence, but no evidence was led. Lastly, on 24.03.2021 another adjournment was granted to the complainant to lead evidence with direction to close the evidence of the complainant on the next date, in case she failed to produce the same. The matter was adjourned to 28.04.2021. Record reveals that the matter was not taken up on 28.04.2021 and was taken up on 12.07.2021. Yet again, the matter was listed for complainant’s evidence and was adjourned to 24.08.2021. On 24.08.2021, an order to the following effect was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, which was un-connected with the previous proceedings held in the matter:

    “24.08.2021

Present: Sh. Navneet Aggarwal, Adv. Learned vice counsel for the applicant.

The present application has been filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for getting an FIR registered against the accused. Till date no status report has been called from the police. Let status report regarding this complaint be called from the concerned SHO for 10.11.2021. A copy of the complaint be sent to the concerned SHO and his report be called back for 10.11.2021.”

6. Finally, on 10.11.2021, the impugned order came to be passed in following terms: -

    “10.11.2021

Present:- Sh. Navneet Aggarwal, Ld. Vice counsel for the applicant.

1. The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 for getting an FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

2. Status report against this application was called from the police against this applicat

    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