High Court Of Orissa
R. N. BISWAL
SUDHANSU PARIDA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
CRI. MISC. 159 Of 2004
Decided On : 08/20/2004
S. 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - S. 156(3), Cr. P. C. - S. 202, Cr. P. C. - S. 3 of S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act - Ss. 341/323/294/354/506(2), I. P. C. - [S. 202, S. 156(3), S. 3 of S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act, Ss. 341/323/294/354/506(2), I. P. C.] - The court discussed the provisions of S. 202 and S. 156(3) of the Cr. P. C., as well as S. 3 of the S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act and the relevant sections of the I. P. C. The court also referred to legal precedents regarding the examination of witnesses in cases exclusively triable by the Court of Session and the authority of the Magistrate to direct investigation at pre-cognizance stage.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a criminal case filed against them, arguing that the Magistrate violated the mandatory provision of law by not examining the witnesses produced by the complainant and instead forwarding the complaint petition to the police for investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in directing the police to take up the investigation, as the direction given under S. 156(3), Cr. P. C. at the pre-cognizance stage is different from the direction given under S. 202(1), Cr. P. C. at the post-cognizance stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Magistrate's authority to direct investigation in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session and the interpretation of the provisions of S. 202 and S. 156(3) of the Cr. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate can order investigation under S. 156(3), Cr. P. C. at the pre-cognizance stage, and the decision in Devarapalli laxminarayan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy was cited to support this finding.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court did not find any illegality or material irregularity in the Magistrate's order to direct the police to take up the investigation.
R. N. BISWAL, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this case under S. 482, Cr. P. C. with a prayer to quash G. R. Case No. 229 of 2003 arising out of I. C. C. No. 51 of 2003 pending in the Court of S. D. J. M. , Udala.
( 2 ) AS per the petition, on 23-7-2003 one phulamani Behera filed I. C. C. No. 51 of 2003 (Annexure 1) before the learned S. D. J. M. , udala making some false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner. Without examining the complainant or her witnesses, on 25-11-2003 the learned S. D. J. M. simply forwarded the complaint petition to the Officer-in-charge of Khunta Police Station through the C. S. I. , Udala under S. 156 (3), cr. P. C. for registration and investigation of the case with a direction to submit the F. l. R. by 4-11-2003. Pursuant to the said direction, the O. I. C. , Udala Police Station treating the complaint petition as F. I. R. , registered p. S. Case No. 76 of 2003 under Ss. 341/323/294/354/506 (2), I. P. C. read with s. 3 of S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act and sent it to the Court which was registered as G. R. Case no. 229 of 2003 (Annexure-2 ). It appears from Annexure-2 that since the alleged offences includes offence under S. 3 of S. C and s. T. (P. A.) Act, which cannot be investigated by any Police Officer below the rank of d. S. P. , the Officer-in-Charge, Khunta, Police station did not take up investigation. The present case has been filed to quash the G. R. Case No. 229 of 2003 arising out of i. C. C. No. 51 of 2003 as mentioned earlier.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the offence under 3. 3 of S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act being triable by the Special Court which is essentially a court of Session, the learned S. D. J. M. himself ought to have examined the witnesses produced by the complainant instead of sending the complaint petition to the O. I. C. of Khunta Police Station for investigation as required under S. 202, Cr. P. C. Since he violated the mandatory provision of law, G. R. Case No. 229 of 2003 arising out of I. C. C. No. 51 of 2003 of the Court of S. D. J. M. Udala ought to be quashed. He cited the decision in Moly v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1890 : (2004 Cri LJ 1812)where the Apex Court held that a special court under the S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act is essentially a Court of Session. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, it is held that special Court under the S. C. and S. T. (P. A.)act is essentially a Court of Session.
( 4 ) PROVISO (a) to sub-section (1) of S. 202, cr. P. C. postulates that in a complaint case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate cannot direct a Police Officer to investigate into it, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Again proviso to subsection (2) of S. 202, Cr. P. C. ordains that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is exclusively triable by the court of Session, he shall ask the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them.
( 5 ) IN the decisions in Rosy v. State of kerala, reported in (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 490 : (2000 Cri LJ 930) and Dibakar Singh v. Birakishore Jarika, (2004) 2 OLR 67 as cited on behalf of the petitioner, the Apex Court and this Court respectively have held that in a complaint case exclusively triable by the Court of Session the Magistrate should examine all the witnesses of the complainant before issuing process against the accused. In the decision Rosy and another (supra), the Apex Court further held that in such a case the Magistrate is required to conduct the enquiry himself and cannot direct investigation by police.
( 6 ) IN the case at hand, the S. D. J. M. , udala directed the O. I. C. . Khunta Police Station under S. 156 (3), Cr. P. C. to investigate into the case. As found from the petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. , the S. D. J. M. gave such direction without application of mind, i. e. , without taking cognizance. Direction given to the police under S.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.