Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(MP) 527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Lakhiram Ramchandani, S/o. Late Thavardas and Ors. - Applicants
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through P.S. Waraseoni, District Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) and Anr. – Respondents
MISC. Criminal Case No. 31459 of 2023
Decided On : 31-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : Shri Sanjay Sharma-Adv.
For the Respondents: Shri Gajendra Parashar- Panel Lawyer, and Shri Utkarsh Agrawal- Adv.

The court affirmed that a Magistrate can issue an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. after a revision, even if a prior complaint was dismissed, emphasizing the need for proper procedural adherence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3) and 482 - Quashing of orders - Application filed to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge allowing a revision and remanding the matter to the Magistrate for reconsideration - The Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) was challenged on grounds of prior dismissal of the complaint and lack of further evidence - The court emphasized that the Magistrate can issue an order under Section 156(3) before taking cognizance and that re-appreciation of material is sufficient for compliance with the revisional court's order. (Paras 2, 12, 18, 26)

(B) Preliminary Inquiry - The court noted that if a police officer concludes no cognizable offence is made out after a preliminary inquiry, he must submit a report to the Magistrate, and failure to do so is a material illegality. (Paras 7, 21)

(C) Affidavit Requirement - The court reiterated the necessity of supporting affidavits for applications under Section 156(3) to ensure accountability and discourage frivolous complaints. (Paras 20, 23)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought to quash orders related to a complaint alleging misappropriation of funds, which had been dismissed by the Magistrate but later reinstated by the Revisional Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for interference with the Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) and upheld the procedural requirements for filing complaints.

Issues: The main issues included whether the Magistrate could reconsider a previously dismissed complaint and the procedural validity of the complaint without an affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Magistrate's authority to issue an order under Section 156(3) remains intact even after a dismissal, provided the revisional court has remanded the matter for reconsideration.

Result: Application dismissed.

ORDER :

(Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.)

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to quash the order dated 30.01.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 75/2022 by Second ASJ Waraseoni District Balaghat and further quash consequential order of taking cognizance dated 21.06.2023 passed in Case No.UNCR/49/2022 by JMFC, Waraseoni District Balaghat (M.P.) and further dismiss the application filed by the respondent no. 2 U/s 156(3) R/w 200 Cr.P.C. against the applicants.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that respondent No. 2 had filed W.P. No. 7765/2021 seeking a direction to consider his complaint and accordingly, the Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 06.04.2021 disposed of the petition with a direction to the Town Inspector, Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat that if the respondent No. 2 files a complaint within 7 days along with a certified copy of the order passed in W.P. No.7765/2021, then the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, as mentioned in the order dated 24.12.2020 passed in W.P. No. 18878/2020. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 filed an application on 12.04.2021 before the SHO, Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat thereby making general allegations against all the applicants. The SHO, Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat after inquiry found that no cognizable offence is made out and accordingly, submitted his expunge report dated 05.06.2021 to the SDO, Waraseoni, District Balaghat. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed Conc. No. 1643/2021, which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 01.09.2021 by holding that there is no disobedience of the order and Town Inspector has considered the complaint and after due application of mind has taken a decision that no offence is made out. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3)/ 200 of Cr.P.C. before JMFC, Waraseoni, District Balaghat. The Learned Magistrate proceeded with the case and after recording the statements of the witnesses, dismissed the application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3)/200 of Cr.P.C. by order dated 06.08.2022 and recorded the finding that from perusal of complaint and the documents, the commission of cognizable offence is not made out.

2. The respondent No. 2 challenged the order passed by Magistrate by filing Criminal Revision No. 75/2022, which was allowed by order dated 30.01.2023 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat and the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the JMFC, Waraseoni, District Balaghat was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial Magistrate to re-consider the complaint afresh. Thereafter, JMFC, Waraseoni, District Balaghat by order dated 21.06.2023 passed in UNCR 49/2022 passed an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. thereby directing the police to investigate the matter.

3. Challenging the order passed by JMFC, Waraseoni, District Balaghat on 21.06.2023, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that the JMFC, Waraseoni, District Balaghat has taken cognizance of the complaint and has passed an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In fact once the SHO, Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat had found that no cognizable offence is made out, then there was no reason for the Magistrate to pass an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Although, the Revisional Court had remanded the matter back to reconsider the case but the Trial Magistrate has acted in a mechanical manner and without collecting any further evidence has passed an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

4. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that with the help of donation by the members of the Society, building was constructed and it was decided that the persons, who had given the maximum donation will be inducted as a tenant. The allegation of misappropriation of fu