Back
2022 Supreme(J&K) 720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J.
Kamlesh Devi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of J&K & Ors. – Respondents
CRMC No. 144 of 2013 & APPCR No. 28 of 2013
Decided on : 29-11-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rakesh Chargotra
For the Respondent: Pawan Dev Singh, R.P. Sapolia
IMPORTANT POINT
A Magistrate does not have the authority to transfer an investigation to another agency; such powers are reserved for superior courts, and the Crime Branch can only investigate cases specified in the relevant SRO.
Headnote:
REINVESTIGATION - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SRO 202, SECTIONS 420, 467, 468, 471, 182 CRPC - The court discussed the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to transfer investigations and the competence of the Crime Branch to investigate certain offenses. It highlighted that only superior courts can order reinvestigation or transfer investigations between agencies. The court found that the Magistrate's order was without jurisdiction, leading to the quashing of the transfer to the Crime Branch, while upholding the need for further investigation by the local police.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an order directing the Crime Branch to reinvestigate a case of forgery and related offenses, following a complaint that was initially deemed false. The Magistrate had transferred the investigation from the local police to the Crime Branch, which the petitioners contested as beyond the Magistrate's authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to transfer the investigation to the Crime Branch and that the Crime Branch was not competent to investigate the case under the relevant SRO. The court upheld the need for further investigation by the local police.
Issues: 1. Whether a Magistrate can transfer an investigation to a different police agency. 2. Whether the Crime Branch was competent to investigate the case of forgery as per the relevant SRO.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that only superior courts have the authority to order reinvestigation or transfer investigations between agencies. The Magistrate's order was deemed invalid as it exceeded his jurisdiction, and the Crime Branch's involvement was not warranted under the applicable regulations.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Magistrate's order directing the Crime Branch to reinvestigate and the subsequent investigation and chargesheet by the Crime Branch. However, it rejected the petitioners' request to quash the FIR, directing the local police to conduct further investigation.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioners through the medium of this petition seek quashment of an order dated 28.07.2010 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate (Special Mobile Magistrate Passenger Tax and Shops Act) Jammu, in a final report titled State through Police Station Kanachak vs. Nemo, whereby the learned Magistrate has directed the respondent no. 4 Sr. Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch) Jammu, to re-investigate the matter i.e. FIR No. 35 of 2009 registered at Police Station Kanachak Jammu, against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC and also for quashing the FIR No. 35 of 2009 and the charge sheet arising therefrom titled State vs. Kamlesh Devi & Ors.
2. One Beero Devi wife of Naseeb Singh R/o Batera, Tehsil and District Jammu (hereinafter called 'complainant' for short) on 24.03.2009 filed a complaint against Kamlesh Devi, petitioner No. 1 herein and Principal Sun Star Academy, Ban Batera, Tehsil & District Jammu, in the court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu, who exercising the powers under section 156(3) CrPC, ordered In-charge Police Station Kanachak to proceed in the matter to carry out the investigation. On the directions of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu, a case was registered, vide FIR No. 35 of 2009 at Police Station Kanachak and after collecting the material/documentary evidence and recording the statements of witnesses and also complying with all the formalities which were required to complete the investigation found that the allegations levelled in the complaint were false, manipulated and without any basis and that it was a fit case to proceed against the complainant under section 182 CrPC for having lodged a false and frivolous case. SHO Police Station concerned filed a closure report (Ikhtatami) before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu who transferred the case to the Court of Ld. Special Mobile Magistrate Passenger Tax and Shops Act Jammu for disposal under law.
3. Learned Magistrate, after issuing notice to the complainant Beero Devi, recorded her statement, wherein she deposed that she was not satisfied with the investigation; that the investigation be transferred to the Crime Branch Jammu. Learned Magistrate vide his order dated 28.07.2010 transferred the investigation of the case in question from Police Station Kanachak Jammu to a different police agency i.e. Crime Branch Jammu to investigate the matter making the reference of SRO 202, dated 03.06.1999, with the understanding that the Crime Branch Jammu was empowered to carry out the investigation in the case of forgery.
4. Pursuant to the directions of Learned Magistrate, Crime Branch Jammu reinvestigated the case registered vide FIR No. 35 of 2009 as CR/R/FIR/35 of 2009/Kanachak/11169, dated 06.09.2010 filed the charge sheet for the commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B RPC before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu who assigned the case to Ld. Municipal Magistrate Jammu, who was pleased to commit the said case to the Principal Sessions Court Jammu. The sessions Court vide order dated 11.10.2012 chargesheeted all the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B RPC and directed the prosecution to lead evidence.
5. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 28.07.2010 passed by Learned Special Mobile Magistrate whereby final closure report titled 'State through Police Station Kanachack v. Nemo' was not accepted and respondent Crime Branch Jammu was directed to re-investigate the matter. Petitioners have also sought quashment of the FIR and challan arising out of that pending before the court of Principal Sessions Court Jammu against the petitioners.
6. Mr. Chargotra learned counsel for the petitioners argued that neither the Ld. Magistrate was not competent to direct re-investigation of the case to be carried out by a different police agency i.e. Crime
