IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The trial Court erred in ordering further investigation without discussing the police's final report, violating procedural requirements under the Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.4009 of 2023 in Cr.No.181 of 2023 of P.S.CCS, DD, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 (A.1, 2 and 6). The 1st petitioner is a registered company, 2nd petitioner is the Managing Director of A.1-company at the relevant time and 3rd petitioner is the wife of 2nd petitioner. For the sake of convenience the petitioners hereinafter referred to as A.1, A.2 and A.6.

3. A.1 is a Pharmaceutical Drug Design and Development company. A complaint was filed by the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant with the Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad against six accused including the petitioners, which was registered as Cr.No.181 of 2022 under Sections 406 and 420 r/w.Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’).

4. The brief facts of the case are that the 3rd respondent is the founder of U.S. based company and in the year 2018, A.2 approached him seeking investment in A.1-Company at Hyderabad for developing various medical solutions for various diseases. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent invested Rs.45,01,60,000/- in A.1-company. In the said process, A.2 introduced A.3, A.4 and A.5 as partners to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent felt that the petitioners and other accused were not being honest as they did not allow him to inspect the financials and on suspicion A.2 issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- to the 3rd respondent and when the said cheques were presented, they were bounced. Later A.2 paid the cheque amount. Basing on the above facts, complaint was lodged and after thorough investigation, police filed final report closing the case as civil in nature. It is also stated that no documentary evidence was furnished by the complainant to the police.

5. Aggrieved by filing the final report, the 3rd respondent filed a protest petition before the XII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was taken on file as Protest Petition No.4009 of 2023. The 3rd respondent requested the Court to direct further investigation in Cr.No.181 of 2022. By order 16.09.2023, the trial Court allowed the petition and ordered for further investigation observing that the material on record was insufficient to take cognizance, and directed the same police who filed final report to investigate and to file report.

6. Heard Sri V.Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ch.Jagannatha Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K.Satish Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a Magistrate acting under Section 190 Cr.P.C, having taken cognizance on a complaint of an offence, then proceeds to have power under XV of the Code dealing with complaints to Magistrate, which is having under Sections 200 to 203. Section 200 Cr.P.C, deals with examination of the complainant and under this section, the Magistrate shall examine both the complainant and the witnesses present which is compulsory and after acting under Section 200 Cr.P.C, if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding, by virtue of the provisions of Section 204 Cr.P.C, he will issue process summons or warrants as the case may be. But in cases where the accused stays beyond the area which he exercises his jurisdiction, Section 202 Cr.P.C, comes into picture. Section 202 of Cr.P.C, is a post-cognizance provision and only examination of complainant and witnesses on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C, then the question of Section 202 arises.

8. The scope or power of a Magistrate to give a direction to the police under Section 202 of Cr.P.C, to investigate is only for limited purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, but the trial Court totally misunderstood the scope and reach of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. On one hand, ha