Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(All) 3981

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Anish Kumar Gupta, J
Smt. Rashmi Sundrani – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7549 of 2022 | APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29958 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mohd.Aslam Azhar Khan,Rajeev Ratan Shukla,Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents: Aman Kumar,Ayush Mishra,Chandra Shekher Dwivedi,G.A.,Gaurav Tiwari,Prabha Shanker Mishra,Udai Chandani

The Magistrate cannot retroactively classify a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on an investigation report, as further investigations are solely under the police's purview without requiring judicial permission.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 173 and 190 - Articles 21 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Quashing of order treating criminal matter as complaint case - Court held the Magistrate cannot treat matter as complaint case after taking cognizance based on initial police report - The power of further investigation belongs solely to the investigation agency after cognizance has been taken and does not require prior approval from the Magistrate - In view of the interim order, prior cognizance was affirmed. (Paras 9, 10, 45, 48)

(B) Jurisdiction of Magistrates - The court emphasized that while Magistrates can direct police for further investigation pre-cognizance, this power does not extend post-cognizance in considering new evidence or subsequent reports unless requested by the police agency. (Paras 10, 46)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of orders regarding treatment of a criminal case as a complaint case after a charge sheet was filed. The arising disputes revolved around allegations of financial misconduct among various parties involved in a public feeding program. (Paras 4, 10)

Findings of Court:
Orders directing the reclassification of ongoing proceedings were invalid post-cognizance except if initiated by the investigation agency itself. The earlier processes remain effective and binding. (Paras 46, 48)

Issues: Whether the Magistrate had the authority to direct that ongoing criminal proceedings be treated as a complaint case subsequent to taking cognizance of the charge sheet from the investigation agency. (Paras 10, 45)

Ratio Decidendi: The decision underscores that while the police have an inherent right to conduct further investigations, the court's jurisdiction post-cognizance is limited in regards to directing or altering the nature of ongoing proceedings without police initiative. (Paras 9, 10, 46)

Result: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming ongoing procedures by the trial court while setting aside lower court decisions deeming the case a complaint. (Paras 10, 48)

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction and procedural details concerning case filing (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. factual background of the fir and initial investigations (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. history of legal actions taken by parties involved (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. arguments and claims made by the petitioner regarding false accusations (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. counterarguments supporting the fir claims (Para 14 , 15)
6. legal considerations of further investigation rights under crpc (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. judicial interpretation of sections in relation to further investigation (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
8. case law supporting police investigation rights post-cognizance (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
9. critical overview of the police's statutory investigation powers (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
10. implications of judicial rulings on investigation processes (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
11. summary of identifiable principles for future investigations (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
12. final orders and decisions by the court concerning furnished arguments (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
13. distinct legal interpretations affecting the trial process (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
14. overall conclusion and operational directives for trial (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)

1. Heard Sri R.P. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Rajeev Ratan Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Azhar Khan, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and Sri Sandeep Choudhary, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The petition under Article 227 has been filed by petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 03.08.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 145 of 2021 (Smt. Rashmi Sundrani vs. State of U.P. and Others) arising out of order dated 27.11.2019 and subsequent order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate.

3. The aforesaid application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant seeking quashing of the order dated 09.04.2019, passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 139 of 2016 (State vs. Mukesh Kumar Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 369 of 2015 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Colonel Ganj, Allahabad, whereby the learned Magistrate has directed the matter to be treated as a complaint case on protest petition filed by the applicant against the final order dated 21.03.2018 submitted by the Investigation Agency.

4. Since the facts of both the matters are common as both the cases are arising out of the same F.I.R., therefore, the entire facts and circumstances are being taken from the petition under Article 227 filed by the petitioner- Smt. Rashmi Sundrani.

5. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. being F.I.R. No. 0369 of 2015 was lodged by the respondent no. 2 on 21.05.2015 against Mukesh Kumar Singh, Rashmi Sundrani, S.K. Sundrani and Sanjeev Trivedi, alleging therein that he was a businessman situated at Allahabad. The accused no.1, Mukesh Kumar Singh, approached him and said that he is having some connection with the Jan Jagran Samiti, which helps in the distribution and preparation of the Mid Day Meal in different schools and on persuasion of said Mukesh Kumar Singh, the informant had gone to Raipur, where an agreement dated 29.12.2012 was executed between the Jan Jagran Samiti represented through the petitioner herein and said Mukesh Kumar Singh as well as the informant, Hari Kishan. Thereupon, they further executed some Memorandum of Understanding and also opened various bank accounts and they started jointly supplying the materials after an agreement with the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad. Thereupon some dispute arose between the parties with regard to siphoning of the amounts, received from the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad.

6. The allegations with regard to siphoning of amount is against the petitioner as well as one S.K. Sundarani and Sanjeev Trivedi. Being aggrieved, the informant Hari Kishan h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(All) 3981

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADAnish Kumar Gupta, JSmt. Rashmi Sundrani – AppellantVersusState of U.P. and Another – RespondentMATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7549 of 2022 | APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29958 of 2019

The Magistrate cannot retroactively classify a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on an investigation report, as further investigations are solely under the police's purview without requiring judicial permission.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Anish Kumar Gupta, J
Smt. Rashmi Sundrani – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7549 of 2022 | APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29958 of 2019