Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 3414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.N. Prakash, J.
P. Ravindranath – Appellant
Vs.
K. Chandragandhi and Ors. – Respondents
Crl. R.C. No. 1290 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On: 27.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N. Manokaran
For the Respondents: G. Ravikumar
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120(B), 467, 477 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 156, 173 – Call for the records – Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order dated 04.06.2013 made in C.M.P. No. 9144 of 2012 in C.C. No. 280 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udumalpet and set aside the same by allowing this criminal revision petition. – Heard Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. G. Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and learned Additional Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent. – Held, Additional Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Azija Begum Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 126, wherein, further investigation was ordered on an application filed by the defacto complainant which order was ultimately upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. – The issue raised by Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel need not detain us any further since under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. does not give power to the Magistrate to order further investigation. – As said earlier, the power to conduct further investigation already lies in the hands of the police and that power is only recognized by Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – In other words, the police can suo-motu conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. of course after getting formal leave of the Magistrate or the Magistrate can also order further investigation by virtue of the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Right for the defacto complainant to file a protest application on which a further investigation can be ordered by the Magistrate. – Magistrate should have issued notice to the defacto complainant before accepting the final report as Ravindranath whose name figured in FIR was excluded in the final report. – This not having been done, the right of the defacto complainant to file a protest application has been foreclosed. – Viewing the matter from any angle, this Court is unable to countenance the submissions of Mr. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. – On the contrary, this Court is of the view that the petitioner Ravindranath has no locus standi to challenge the order of further investigation by the Magistrate, because, no accused has right to pre-decisional hearing before commencement of investigation. – Petitioner cannot pre-suppose that he would be made as an accused. – May be, further investigation may even exonerate all the accused or may also include some new accused. – Criminal Revision Case filed by Ravindranath is devoid of merits. – Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order dated 04.06.2013 made in C.M.P. No. 9144 of 2012 in C.C. No. 280 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udumalpet and set aside the same by allowing this criminal revision petition. Heard Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. G. Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and learned Additional Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent.
2. It is seen that on a complaint lodged by one K. Chandragandhi, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 849 of 2009 on 22.04.2009 under Sections 120(B), 467, 477 I.P.C. against (1) Ravindranath and (2) Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Udumalpet.
3. The crux of the allegation in the FIR is that Ravindranath (A1) had given a cheque to the defacto complainant and when the cheque was presented to the ICICI bank for clearance, the Branch Manager returned the cheque on the ground "signature does not tally". It appears that the defacto complainant had taken a photo copy of the cheque given by Ravindranath before presentation and when she compared the photo copy with the returned cheque, she found that the signature in the photo copy differed from the signature in the cheque. Therefore, the defacto complaint suspected that Ravindranath and the Manager of ICICI bank must have conspired to materially alter the signature in the original cheque, so that, it could be returned on the ground "signature does not tally" rather than on the ground of "insufficiency of funds".
4. Be that as it may, the respondent police conducted the investigation and filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udumalpet arraying one Balamurugan, the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Udumalpet Branch as accused, but, did not include Ravindranath as an accused. The final report was filed on 12.09.2012 for offences under Sections 467 and 477 I.P.C. as against Balamurugan alone.
5. The learned Magistrate did not issue notice to the defacto complainant and therefore, the defacto complainant did not know that Ravindranath has been excluded in the final report. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the case was numbered as C.C. No. 280 of 2012 and process was issued only against Balamurugan. When K. Chandragandhi (defacto complainant) came to know about it, she filed an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation. The said application was numbered as C.M.P. No. 9144 of 2012 and by order dated 04.06.2013, further investigation was ordered by the learned Magistrate. Challenging the order dated 04.06.2013 passed in C.M.P. No. 9144 of 2012 in C.C. No. 280 of 2012, Balamurugan (A1) approached this Court in Crl. R.C. No. 1007 of 2013 on various grounds. This Court dismissed the Crl. R.C. No. 1007 of 20013 by a well considered order on 16.10.2014.
6. Simultaneously, it appears that Ravindranath, fearing that he may be implicated in the further investigation proceedings, filed Crl. R.C. No. 1290 of 2013, challenging the same order dated 04.06.2013 passed in C.M.P. No. 9144 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet. Unfortunately, the pendency of Crl. R.C. No. 1290 of 2013 was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who dealt with Crl. R.C. No. 1007 of 2013. While so, the defacto complainant approached this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 16082 of 2015 for a direction to the police to complete further investigation and file an additional report.
7. Only at that juncture, it came to light that the police were not able to proceed with further investigation because this Court, while admitting Crl. R.C. No. 1290 of 2013, had granted interim stay of the order dated 04.06.2013 in C.M.P. No. 9144 of 2012. Therefore, this Court referred the matter to My Lord. The Hon'ble Chief Justice for a direction to list the Crl. O.P. No. 16082 of 2015 along with Crl. R.C. No. 1290 of 2013 and both the matte
