Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Sivakumar - Petitioner
Versus
P. Senthilkumar and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.R.C(MD)No.643 of 2023
Decided On : 19-01-2024
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION - MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS - Cr.P.C. Sections 156(3), 397(1), 401 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the duty of the police to register a case when a cognizable offence is disclosed. The court interpreted that the credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration, and the police must investigate allegations of serious misconduct, particularly in cases of misappropriation. The court found that the lower court's acceptance of a negative report without proper investigation was erroneous, leading to the decision to direct the police to register the case and conduct a thorough investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partner in the firm M/s.SS Impex, alleged that the first respondent misappropriated over Rs.11 crores by transferring funds to personal accounts without authorization. After filing a complaint with the police and receiving no action, the petitioner sought intervention from the Judicial Magistrate, who accepted a police closure report stating the complaint was false and a counterblast to an FIR against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court's acceptance of the police's negative report was flawed. It noted that serious allegations of misappropriation were made, and the police had a duty to register a case based on the complaint. The court highlighted that the investigation was not conducted properly and that the petitioner had provided sufficient documentation to support his claims.
Issues: Whether the police were obligated to register a case based on the allegations of misappropriation and whether the lower court erred in accepting the police's negative report without further investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the police must register an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed, regardless of the credibility of the information at that stage. It emphasized that the lower court should have directed the police to investigate the serious allegations rather than dismissing the complaint based on a negative report.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, set aside the lower court's order, and directed the District Crime Branch to register the case and conduct an investigation into the allegations of misappropriation.
ORDER :
(K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.)
(Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397(1) r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.08 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District and set aside the order dated 13.12.2022.)
The petitioner filed this revision challenging the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.8 of 2022 dated 13.12.2022, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No-II, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
2. The brief facts of the case.
The petitioner is the partner of the partnership firm namely M/s.SS Impex. In the said partnership Firm, the first respondent is a partner. They entered into partnership agreement on 15.06.2015. The said partnership Firm was doing the export of cashewnut. The second respondent is the auditor of the said Company. The said company have the accounts in the third respondent Bank, namely, Indian Bank, Perambalur District. The first respondent, according to the petitioner, committed misappropriation of Rs.11,25,69,683/- by transferring the same to the name of his wife and other relative and friends without any loyalty and commitment. According to the petitioner, he further committed misappropriation after his resignation from the partnership Firm. Therefore, they made a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 06.01.2022. There was no action and hence he made another compliant to the higher officials and there was no action. Hence, he filed a petition under Section 156 Cr.P.C, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, to take action against the respondents 1 to 3 in Cr.M.P.No.8 of 2022. The learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint on 11.05.2022 to DCB, Thanjavur and directed the respondent police/DCB, Thanjavur to conduct enquiry and file a report before the Magistrate. Thereafter, the respondent police/DCB filed the closure report dated 16.06.2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate with the finding that the petitioner made a false complaint and the same was made as a counter-blast to the FIR registered in Crime No.13 of 2022 against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 420 & 506(ii) IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the report with the following findings:
Further in the petition averments, it has been stated that the day to day administration, the company was administered by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had not produced any documents to prove that he had paid the deposit of Rs.1.32 crores of the 1st accused.
Further, the averment that the petitioner had not looked after the affairs of the company on the belief and faith on 1st and 2nd accused person is highly unbelievable.
No prudent man of ordinary senses would have a blind faith over the partner after investing huge amount of money which amount to several crores.
Further, this petitioner though alleges collusive of District Crime Branch police with the 1st and 2nd accused wish to forward his complaint for registration of crime.
This petition being initially filed for forwarding under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, and on filing report by the police that no offence committed as alleged in the complaint, it is not conducive forward the complaint again to the police.
The objections filed by the petitioner allegating the police cannot be accepted. Since the petitioner had not filed relevant documents before this Court for the offence which can culminated to cheating by the accused persons.
Hence, the objections filed b
The police are mandated to register an FIR when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, and the credibility of the information is not a prerequisite for such registration.
The police station is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out, and the Magistrate has wide powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to ensure proper investigation.
Revision maintainable against dismissal of Section 156(3) CrPC application; prior police complaints evidenced by postal receipts satisfy precondition; forgery to obtain scheme benefits discloses cogn....
The main legal point established is the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence and the need for a preliminary inquiry in certain cases. The court emphasized t....
A Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must direct the registration of an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence involving complex technical evidence that requires specialized polic....
The magistrate must ensure a complaint discloses a cognizable offence before directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and a detailed affidavit is required to support such applicat....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
