Madras High Court
D.Ramesh vs V.Vijayakumar on 31 July, 2018
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.07.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Crl.R.C.Nos.271 of 2017 and 541 of 2017
Crl.R.C.No.271/2017
D.Ramesh
S/o.Duraisamy
Rep. by its Power Agent
R.Jayaprakash
S/o.Ramalingam
Door No.24/14 10th Street, M Block
Anna Nagar, Chennai ...
Petitioner/Complainant
-vs-
1.V.Vijayakumar
S/o.Davidraj
No.1C-16 Annai Illam
Patchi Amman Koil Street,
Thevarkulam, Sankarankoil Taluk
Tirunelveli District.
2.M.Thomas Pandian
S/o.Maruthu Devar
Adaikalapuram Main Road,
Sankarankoil Taluk
Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents/Accused
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 25.01.2017 made in Cr.M.P.No.107/2017 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, (Relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID, Metro cases, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For Respondents : M/s.Ahmed Associates
Mr.R.Rajarathinam
Public Prosecutor for State
assisted by Mr.Ayyapparaj
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.No.541 of 2017
M.Chezhieyan
S/o.M.S.Muthu
D.No.A114/82
3rd Avenue
Anna Nagar,
Chennai ...
Petitioner/Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch Team XVII A
Chennai. .. Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 25.01.2017 in Cr.M.P.No.1182/2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, (Relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID, Metro cases, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajarajan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajarathinam
Public Prosecutor for State
assisted by Mr.Ayyapparaj
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Judgment reserved on :12.09.2017
Judgment pronounced on : 31.07.2018
COMMON ORDER
The facts, which are required to be noticed insofar as Crl.R.C.No.271/2017 are concerned, read thus:
(i) That the revision petitioner is running a Firm in the name and style of Colour Homes, by which, he constructs houses and sell. He has been doing the said business for several years. During the month of May 2015, since the revision petitioner was in need of some financial assistance to run his business, the accused persons, who are the respondents herein, had contacted the petitioner over phone and they introduced themselves that they are having contact with some big shots, who are the financiers at Overseas and from whom, they will arrange loan to the tune of Rs.25 Crores to the petitioner.
(ii) In order to strike the deal, the petitioner and the respondents had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 27.05.2015, as per which, the loan would be arranged by the respondents to the petitioner and the petitioner has to pay commission to the respondents. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore ten lakhs only) was demanded as commission in advance by the respondents. Believing the words of the respondents, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- by way of Bank RTGS.
(iii) Though the said money by way of commission was received by the respondents in advance, no action was taken by them to avail the loan by the petitioner and even after almost one year period, since nothing was materialised, the petitioner claimed to have met the respondents on 18.04.2016 personally at Chennai and when the petitioner made demand of repayment of the advance commission given by him, the petitioner was treated shabbily, thereby, the petitioner had come to the conclusion that the respondents had cheated him. In the result, the petitioner preferred a complaint on 21.04.2016 before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, seeking action against the respondents.
(iv) According to the complainant, though the said complaint of the petitioner was forwarded by the Commissioner office file C.No.1919/COP.V/CCB/16 to the Inspector of Police, II Team, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, the said officer ie., the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch (hereinafter referred to as 'CCB') had not taken into account the said complaint and he had not filed even an FIR and he literally refused to entertain the complaint to proceed further.
(v) Aggrieved over the non action on the part of the Investigating Officer of the CCB, to whom, the complaint of the petitioner was forwarded by the Commissioner of Police, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 190(1) read with 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Code') before the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai, in October 2016 seeking for a direction to the CCB, Chennai, to register a case and to investigate the complaint against the respondents for the offence committed under Sections 107, 109, 120(b), 405, 406, 465, 420, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC. The said petition filed under Section 156(3) of the Code was considered and rejected through the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 25.01.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.107/2017. As against the said order of the learned Magistrate, the present revision has been filed.
2. The very short facts, which are required to be noticed insofar as the case in Crl.R.C.No.541/2017 is concerned, read as follows:
That the petitioner filed a complaint before the CCB, Chennai, to take action against some individuals, who allegedly were trying to usurp the building property of the petitioner. After having enquired preliminarily, the petitioner was directed to approach the civil Court to seek remedy, by sending a report in this regard by the second respondent on 22.07.2016. Aggrieved over the same, this petitioner also invoking Section 156(3) of the Code, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1182/2016 before the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive trial of CCB Cases (relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai. The said petition in Crl.M.P.No.1182/2016 was rejected by the learned Magistrate by order dated 25.01.2017 as not maintainable. As against which, this revision case was filed.
3. Since in both the cases, the learned Magistrate, who passed the respective impugned orders, had taken into account the legal position as to whether the said petitions invoking Section 156(3) of the Code was maintainable and had come to the conclusion that petitions were not maintainable, accordingly dismissed the petitions.
4. In order to decide the sustainability of the said orders passed by the learned Magistrate, the facts pertaining to the first case and the decision taken thereon are taken up for discussion herein, which would cover the second case also.
5. In the order impugned in Crl.M.P.No.107/2017 dated 25.01.2017, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said petition as not maintainable primarily on two grounds:
(i) First ground was that, the Magistrate, even though is empowered to give direction for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, such direction can only be given to an officer in-charge of a police station that falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, where such investigation can be ordered. In this regard, it is the finding of the learned Magistrate that neither the Commissioner of Police of Chennai City, who is in charge of the CCB, Chennai, nor any other officer of CCB, Chennai, would be deemed to be an officer in-charge of a police station within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Code, as the CCB has never been declared as a police station under Section 2(s) of the Code.
(ii) The second ground was that, the complainant/petitioner should have complied with the requirement of Section 154 of the Code by giving a complaint to the concerned Police Station/Station House Officer and if at all such complaint was not taken on file by such police officer in charge of the police station, he can send the complaint to the Superintendent of Police concerned. Since this procedure is contemplated under Section 154(1) and (3) of the Code and the same should be mandatorily followed before invoking 156(3) of the Code as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava and another v. State of U.P. And others [(2015) 6 SCC 287] (hereinafter referred to as 'Priyanka's case), the petition is not maintainable. By giving primarily these two reasons, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition in the first revision case.
6. Insofar as the second revision case is concerned, apart from the aforesaid reasons, one more additional reason was given, ie., as per Priyanka's case, every petition filed under Section 156(3) of the Code must be supported by an affidavit to be filed by the petitioner and in absence of such affidavit, such petition shall not be entertained and in this case, since no such affidavit admittedly filed by the petitioner, the said petition was liable to be rejected and accordingly, for the said reason also, the petition in the second revision case was rejected by the learned Magistrate through the impugned order in the second case.
7. Before toiling into the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as other interested counsel from the Bar, who also made submissions for and against the stand taken by the learned Magistrate in these two cases, the statutory position pertaining to the issue raised in these cases has to be analysed.
8. Section 156 of the Code reads thus:
156.Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case: -
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such, station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
9. Section 154 of the Code reads thus:
154.Information in cognizable cases:- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every information, whether given in writing or reduced for writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
.........
(2).A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3).Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
10. Section 190 of the Code reads thus:
190.Cognizance of offences by Magistrates (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence -
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
11. From the bare reading of the aforesaid three sections, which are having some interplay in the present issue raised in these cases, the steps to be taken by a complainant/informant after the commission of a cognizable offence, on the basis of number of judgments rendered by Courts of law in this regard, can be catalogued as follows:
(i) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence shall be given to an officer in-charge of a police station either orally or in writing. If it is given in oral, it should be reduced in writing, where the complainant/informant must sign and a copy of such information shall be given to the informant forthwith free of cost;
(ii) If the officer in-charge of a police station refused to receive such information and reduce in writing, the informant/complainant can send such information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who after satisfying about such information, which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, either he can investigate the case or can direct any other officer subordinate to him to investigate;
(iii) Independent of this provision 154 of the Code, it is the power of the police officer to investigate and take cognizance of any offence commissioned within the jurisdiction of the local area, where such police station would have power to enquire into and try the case. However, under Section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate concerned, who is empowered under Section 190 of the Code, has been vested with the power to order for such investigation of any such offence ;
(iv) In Chapter XIV of the Code, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of any offence either on receipt of a complaint of facts which constitute an offence or upon a police report or upon information received from any other source other than a police officer ;
(v) From the bare reading of the aforesaid three sections of the Code, one can understand that, at the first instance, regarding any commission of offence, the person, who knows the information, has to inform to an officer in-charge of a police station and if the informant could not get a response from the in-charge police officer, the same can be reported to the concerned Superintendent of Police ;
(vi) Only after such information, the investigation would commence. Such investigation in cognizable offence can be straight away undertaken by the concerned police officer and in non cognizable cases on receipt of complaint. If any police officer in-charge of a police station and the concerned Superintendent of Police, in spite of a cognizable offence if reported to him, not acted upon to reduce the same in writing within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code and give a copy to the informant and start investigating the complaint/information, then, the informant/complainant can seek remedy from the jurisdictional Magistrate to seek for such an order to such police officer to investigate the matter and for the said purpose, he/she can approach the concerned Magistrate Court by invoking Section 156(3) of the Code ;
(vii) Wherever the Magistrate is empowered under Section 190 of the Code, he can make order for such investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. Therefore, the power of taking cognizance of offence under Section 190 is linked with Section 156(3) of the Code, as the Magistrate empowered under Section 190 alone can order for any investigation in case of failure of the police officer to investigate in spite of information received by him from any source under Section 154 of the Code.
12. Bearing in mind these interplay closely neted by the legislature in bringing these provisions in the Code, the present issue, posed for decision in these cases, have to be dealt with.
13. In the teeth of the legal position, as has been referred to above, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, which are impugned herein, can be put into scanning. In the impugned orders, the learned Magistrate has stated the following as a vital question for consideration, which arose before him:
6.Now, the vital question arises for consideration is whether this Court, which has been specially constituted as per G.O.Ms.No.2442 Home (Courts-II) Department dated 15.03.2012 for the exclusive trial of Central Crime Branch cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department Metro Cases, can direct the Commissioner of Police, Chennai or the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team XVII-A to conduct investigation by invoking Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as prayed in the petition. He further proceeded to say after analyzing Section 156 of the Code that an order to investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code can be given only to the officer in-charge of the police station and not to other police officers.
14. The learned Magistrate, after taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2001 SC 668] has stated that, when a Magistrate orders investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, he can only direct an officer in-charge of a police station to take such investigation and not a superior officer under Section 36 of the Code.
15. The learned Magistrate has further proceeded to analyse as to whether the CCB, Chennai is a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code and also whether the police officer in-charge of CCB, ie., the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Police or any other Officer in-charge of CCB is an officer under Section 2(o) of the Code. He has stated in this regard that, the Central Crime Branch (CCB), which is attached with the office of Police Commissioner, Chennai, is not a regular police station, but it is only a Special Investigation Wing. The learned Magistrate has further stated in this regard which are necessarily to be extracted herein:
14.It is also admitted one that the CCB, Chennai, is not receiving any information from the informant directly under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the CCB registers cases only on the information forwarded by the superior officer like Commissioner of Police or on the direction given by the Court of law. The G.O.Ms.No.1244, Home (Pol-XIV) was applicable only for the Chennai City Suburban area under the commissionerate of St.Thomas mount not for the Chennai City. Inspite of sufficient time were granted, the petitioner side is unable to produce any document or G.O. to show that the CCB, Chennai has been declared as Police Station as required under section 2(s) of Cr.P.C.
....
17.Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the Commissioner of Police or the officer of CCB, Chennai cannot be considered as officer-in-charge of a police station. Therefore, this Court is of the further view that the Commissioner of Police or the CCB, Chennai, cannot be directed to investigate any case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
16. The learned Magistrate by following the law in Priyanka's case cited supra, has given his findings, which reads thus:
23.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivatsava and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2015(6) SCC 287 clearly held that there has to be prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C, while filing a petition under section 156(3) CrPC and both these aspects must be spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect must be filed. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, before passing the order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. it must be ensured that before coming to the Court, the complainant did approach the officer-in-charge of the police station for recording the information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and on refusal to register FIR, the complainant sent the substance of such information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC.
24.In the present case, no material is available to show that the petitioner has invoked the sections 154(1) and then 154(3) of Cr.P.C. before filing this petition for seeking direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the petitioner stated that the information about the alleged offence was informed to the Commissioner of Police. It is worth pointing out that though it could supplement the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station.
17. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate had concluded that, the petitioner should have approached the local territorial jurisdictional Magistrate Court to order such investigation to the officer in-charge of a police station that falls within his territorial jurisdiction to investigate the alleged offence, under Section 156(3) of the Code, after complying with the mandatory procedures laid down for the same.
18. The learned Magistrate has further stated that, since the said Court was specially constituted for the exclusive trial of CCB Cases (relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai, the said petition made under Section 156(3) of the Code seeking a direction to the CCB, Chennai, to investigate the complaint of the petitioner was not maintainable and accordingly, rejected.
19. In the light of the above said decision of the learned Magistrate, which is assailed herein, first, we must look into as to whether the City Crime Branch (CCB), Chennai, is a police station under Section 2(s) of the Code and if so, whether the police officer in-charge of CCB can be termed as Officer in-charge of a police station under Section 2(o) of the Code.
20. To examine these aspects, first, let me take the relevant provision of the Code, ie., 2(o) and 2(s), which read thus:
2(o) Officer in charge of a police station includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present. 2(s) Police Station means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf.
21. In view of the categorical finding of the learned Magistrate that CCB is not a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) and therefore, the officer in-charge or the police officer available in that CCB cannot be termed as an officer in-charge of a police station under Section 2(o) of the code and therefore, the investigation cannot be directed to be undertaken by them by invoking Section 156(3) of the Code, first, let us ascertain as to whether the CCB, Chennai was the police station and if so, when such status was given to it.
22. In this regard, when this Court specifically raised a query to the learned Public Prosecutor to clarify whether the CCB, Chennai is a police station and if so, has it been declared so and when, the learned Public Prosecutor has maintained the stand that, CCB, Chennai, is certainly a police station and such declaration has been given. Since such a stand has been taken by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution, this Court by order dated 29.08.2017 had given the following direction:
2. After extensive hearing from the Bar, this Court still needs two important clarifications from the State/Prosecution.
(1) That the stand of the State is that the City Crime Branch has already been declared as a Police Station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in view of the notification issued under G.O.No. 173, Judicial, dated 1st April, 1929. It is also the stand of the State Government that the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.242 Home (Courts-II) Department, dated 15.03.2012 by and under which sanction was accorded for the constitution of new Court in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Chennai for exclusive trial of Central Crime Branch cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department Metro Cases in Chennai. The exclusive Court has been constituted where the offences investigated by the Central Crime Branch are being tried.
In view of the said position whether or not the State Government issued any Government Order or notification entrusting the class or category of the offences to be exclusively investigated by the City Crime Branch, Chennai and if so what are all such offences which have been specifically entrusted to the CCB (City Crime Branch) for investigation?.
(2) Under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an officer incharge of a Police Station is empowered to receive information either oral or in writing and on receipt of the same it shall be recorded in a book to be kept by said Officer, in such Forms as may be prescribed on behalf of the State and if such Officer refused to receive the information and enter in the book, the person aggrieved can approach the Superintendent of Police, who have jurisdiction, before whom, if such information is made, the Superintendent if satisfied shall either investigate the case himself or direct the investigation to be made by any Police Officer in subordinate him.
In this context, since the City Crime Branch having been declared to be a Police Station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code, whether any such Officer/Officers-in-charge of the Police Station for CCB has been designated by the State? and if so, the details of such officers so designated by the State shall also be produced before this Court.
3. Therefore, these two aspects i.e, the offences to be investigated by the CCB and the Officer/Officers designated as Officer incharge of the Police Station for CCB by way of Government Order or notification if any made or entrusted already, such documents/literature shall be filed before this Court during the next hearing.
4. In order to enable the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get proper instructions from the respondents/State, Registry is directed to issue this order copy to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents/State on or before 30.08.2017. The copy of this order may be communicated to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Tamil Nadu as well as The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu. Apart from that, the order copy be served to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City.
23. In response to the said query raised by this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor has filed a typed set of papers along with the report of the Additional Commissioner of Police, CCB, Chennai. In the typed set of papers, the prosecution side has filed a document, namely, G.O.No.173 Judicial dated 01.04.1929. For the sake of clarity and better understanding, the relevant portion of the said notification is extracted hereunder:
Order No.173 Judicial, dated 1st April 1929.
The Government sanction with effect from the 1st April 1929 the proposals of the Commissioner of Police for the re-organisation of the Madras City Police subject to any modifications indicated in the following paragraphs.
2.Investigation Central Crime Department The Government accept the Commissioner's proposals for the formation of a Central Crime department with the following staff :-
-
Deputy Commissioner Assitant Commissioner Inspectors Sub Inspectors Head constables Police constables Photographer Gazetted Staff Record section Intelligence section General Investigation section Divisional Detachments Government house Total 1
-1 1
-+ 1
-1 1 3 1 6
-3 4 16
-23
-1 5 15 23
-44
-
-26 20 95
-141 1
-
-
-
-
-1
The pay of the photographer will be Rs.85-4-125.
The department will be in charge of Deputy Commissioner under the Commissioner of Police assisted by an Assistant Commissioner who will be in direct charge of the General Investigation section.
The headquarters staff of the department will be accommodated in the office below the residence of the present Deputy Commissioner of Police, Southern Range. The Inspector-General of Police should find rented accommodation for the office of the Superintendent of the Government Railway police, Madras, which occupies a portion of this building.
The Central Office of the department shall be a police station under section 4(1) (s), Criminal Procedure Code. The following notification will be published in the Fort St. George Gazette:-
Notification In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s), sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Governor in Council is pleased to declare that with effect from 1st April 1929 the Central Office of the Crime department, Madras City Police, Madras, shall be a 'Police Station' and the local area for the said station shall be the City of Madras including all places within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature, Madras. [extracted as it]
24. In the said typed set of papers, the prosecution also filed copy of G.O.Ms.No.725 Home Police (VIII) Department dated 18.08.2005. The relevant portion of the said G.O., is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
ORDER:
The Hon'ble Chief Minister while replying to the debate in police demand No.21 on 15.03.2005 has made the following announcement amount others.
Strengthening of Central Crime Branch in Chennai City The Chennai City Central Crime Branch investigates 2000 cases under I.P.C. annually and the existing strength handling above cases is inadequate. In addition to this, the Chennai City Central Crime Branch has to be reorganised and revamped so as to handle and to ensure preemptive action against cheating, job rocket, and falsification of records. Charging usurious interest and cyber crimes. Additional posts of 5 Inspectors, 10 Sub Inspectors and 20 constables, will be created along with 5 jeeps, one Tempo Traveler Van and Ten Motor Cycles at a cost of Rs.78.47 lakhs including non-recurring.
2.In order to revamp the Central Crime Branch, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai has requested to sanction additional strength of 5 Inspector of Police, 10 Sub Inspectors, 15 Head Constables and 5 Grade I Police Constables along with 5 Jeeps. 1 Tempo Traveller and 10 motor Cycles and 5 Telephones and required furniture. With the re-organized set up, the functional division on the basis of categories of crime being handled in Central Crime Branch would ensure better quality of investigation and follow up action of cases in Court. The Director General of Police has also recommended above proposal.
3.The Government after careful examination accept the above proposal. They accordingly sanction the creation of following additional staff in the scale of pay noted against for strengthening and revamping of Chennai City Crime Branch for a period of one year from the date of filling up of post or till the need ceases which ever is earlier.
25. In the same typed set, the prosecution has also filed the organisational chart of the Central Crime Branch, Chennai, and for the sake of convenience, the said Chart also is extracted hereunder:
ORGANISATIONAL CHART OF CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH
26. Along with the said documents, the Additional Commissioner of Police, CCB Chennai, has filed a report and for the sake of clarity, the relevant portion of the said report is extracted hereunder:
3.It is submitted that in this regard the following is submitted.
Following the re-organization of the Madras City Police in 1929, Central Crime Department was formed vide Go.No.173, Judicial dated 01.04.1929 and that the department will be in charge of Deputy Commissioner, under the Commissioner of Police, assisted by an Assistant Commissioner, who will be in direct charge of the General Investigation Section. It was further notified that Central Office of the Crime Department, Madras City Police, Madras as Police Station and that the local area shall be the city of Madras including all places within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature, Madras.
I.Offences to be tried by the CCB
4.It is submitted that in this regard, in G.O.Ms.No.725 Home [Pol.VIII] Department dated 18.08.2005, it has been stated that Chennai City Central Crime Branch has to be reorganized and revamped so as to handle and to ensure preemptive action against cheating, job racket and falsification of records, charging usurious interest and cyber crimes. It is pertinent that the Central Crime Branch investigate cases of offences relating to
1.Cheating
2.Job racket
3.Falsification of records
4.Charging Usurious interest
5.Cyber Crimes.
5.It is submitted that apart from the above, the Central Crime Branch investigate
1.Land Grabbing cases [G.O.Ms.No.423 Home [Pol-XI] Department dated 28.07.2011.
2.Cases allotted by the Commissioner of Police [Under secton 36 of Cr.P.C., 1973] II.OFFICER/OFFICERS DESIGNATED AS OFFICER IN-CHARGE OF THE POLICE STATION FOR CCB
6.It is submitted that in this regard, in G.O.No.173, 1st April 1929, it has been stated that the Central Crime Department will be in charge of Deputy Commissioner, under the Commissioner of Police, assisted by an Assistant Commissioner who will be in direct charge of the General Investigation Section.
7.It is submitted that in view of the above and in accordance with Section 2(o) of Cr.P.C. 1973, the Assistant Commissioner of Police was designated as the Officer in-charge of the Central Crime Branch [Police Station] and further that the parameters as mandated in sec 154(3) Cr.P.C. 1973 has also been fulfilled.
27. This Court has given its anxious consideration to those documents, especially, the oldest document, namely, G.O.No.173 Judicial dated 01.04.1929.
28. On its careful perusal, this Court finds that, under Section 4(1)(s) under the old Code 1898 (equivalent to Section 2 of the present Code), the Governor in Council had declared that, from 01.04.1929, the Central Office of the Crime Department, Madras City Police, Madras, shall be the police station and it has further been declared therein that, the local area for the said station shall be the City of Madras including all places within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
29. This 1929 Government Order stands saved by Section 484 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
484. Repeal and savings:
....
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,--
(b) all notifications published, proclamations issued, powers conferred, forms prescribed, local jurisdictions defined, sentences passed and orders, rules and appointments, not being appointments as Special Magistrates, made under the Old Code and which are in force immediately before the commencement of this Code, shall be deemed, respectively to have been published, issued, conferred, prescribed, defined, passed or made under the corresponding provisions of this Code.
Sometime in 2008, the Chennai City Commissionerate was bifurcated and Chennai Suburban Commissionerate was carved out with its headquarters at St. Thomas Mount. Therefore, the Central Crime Branch also had to be bifurcated, due to which, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1244, Home (Pol-XIV) Department dated 29.09.2008 under Section 2(s) Cr.P.C., declaring the Central Crime Branch in Chennai City Suburban area Police Commissionerate at St. Thomas Mount to be a police station. After the change of political dispensation, the Suburban Commissionerate was once again merged with the Chennai City Commissionerate and at present, we have a single Commissionerate. However, G.O. Ms.No.1244, Home (Pol-XIV) Department dated 29.09.2008, has not been repealed so far. This Court is mentioning this fact because both under the Old Code as well under the new Code, there are notifications to the effect that the Central Crime Branch is a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code.
30. The said order No.173 would further reveal that, the Central Crime Department will be in-charge of a Deputy Commissioner under the Commissioner of Police, who would be assisted by an Assistant Commissioner and who will be in direct in-charge of the general investigating section. Based on the said order only, since the Governor in Council has already declared the Central Office of the Crime Department of the Madras City Police, as the police station within the meaning of Section 4(1)(s) of the old Code (equivalent to Section 2(s) of the present Code), the said Central Office of the Crime Department of Madras City started functioning since then.
31. In the year 2005, when the Government decided to further strengthen the Chennai City, Central Crime Branch, ie., CCB, Chennai, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.725 dated 18.08.2005, which has already been extracted hereinabove. Under the said G.O., what are all the offences to be investigated by the Additional Commissioner of Police, CCB Chennai can also be taken into aid. According to the said Government Order, the following offences are specifically entrusted for investigation by the CCB, Chennai. They are, (1) Cheating (2) Job rocketing (3) Falsification of Records (4) Charging usurious interest and (5) Cyber Crimes.
32. However, at page no.5 of the RTI Manual issued by the Chennai City Police, it is stated that the Central Crime Branch, Chennai, is a specialised organisation which deals only with specialised cases which fall in one of the following categories:
a)Entrustment fraud, document fraud (breach of trust)
b)Gorgery cases
c)Gangsters operation and anti-extortion
d)Kandhuvaddhi and non-specialised crime and unregistered fraud
e)Job racketing
f)Video piracy and copyright act
g)Bank fraud and credit card fraud
h)Cyber crime and cyber law
i)Land grabbing and forged land documents
j)Fake passport, anti-adulteration and essential commodities, unsolved commercial crimes.
33. As regards cases of cheating, the Commissioner of Police has passed an office order dated 08.06.2017 of which, paragraph no.2 reads as under:
(2) In the modification of the orders issued in the reference cited, it is ordered that the amount involved in the cases handled by Central Crime Branch is increased from the existing Rs.25 lakhs to Rs.50 lakhs and that the cases in which the amount involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs are to be investigated by the crime section of the local police under the direct supervision of the Assistant Commissioners of Police, except the special cases or those specifically directed.
34. In that context, the organizational Chart of the CCB, Chennai, filed by the prosecution shall also be taken into account. According to that Chart, the Commissioner of Police is the Head of the CCB and it must be under the control of the Full Time Additional Commissioner of Police, who is called Additional Commissioner of Police, CCB, under whom, Deputy Commissioners of Police, Additional Deputy Commissioners of police, Assistant Commissioners of Police, Inspectors of Police and other Police people are pressed into service. Various types of crimes are being investigated by the CCB, Chennai, out of which, the cheating cases is also one of the category of cases, which are being investigated by the CCB.
35. Much argument was advanced at the Bar as to who would be the Station House Officer for the Central Crime Branch.
36. It may also be relevant to note that at Paragraph No.7 of the report filed by the Additional Commissioner, CCB Chennai, it is stated that, in accordance with Section 2(o) of the Code, the Assistant Commissioner of Police was designated as the Officer in-charge of the Central Crime Branch (Police station) and further that the parameters as mandated under Section 154(3) of the Code has also been fulfilled.
37. It becomes imperative to test the arguments raised at the Bar in the backdrop of paragraph no.7 of the report filed by the Additional Commissioner of Police, referred to above. To appreciate these contentions, it may be necessary to extract PSO 195 as under:
PSO 195 Station House Officers:
Sub Inspectors are normally employed as Station House Officers. However, in large town stations, Inspectors are employed as Station House Officers.
38. Neither Section 2(o) Cr.P.C. nor PSO 195 defines who a Station House Officer is. The reason for such mere description is not far to seek. Section 16 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, says that every police officer appointed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 (Central Act XIV, 1859), may be employed in the City of Chennai and while under such employment, they shall have the same duties and powers and privileges of the police officers appointed under the 1859 Act. Section 21 of the 1859 Act is the source of power for the police to conduct investigation of a case. This Act preceded the first Code of Criminal Procedure, viz., Criminal Procedure Code, 1861. Therefore, every police officer was empowered to conduct investigation of a case under the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859. Section 23 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, is somewhat in pari materia with Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859. It must be remembered that the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, is a Central Act and the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, is a State Act. The Code of Criminal Procedure, which is also a Central Act, is only a procedural law and it cannot have the effect of obliterating the provisions of substantive laws, viz., the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 and the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. If a four corner definition is given to the expression Station House Officer, it is bound to fall foul of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act and the Chennai City Police Act and that is why, a mere description of who is a Station House Officer has been given in Section 2(o) Cr.P.C. and PSO 195.
39. That apart, if one particular officer is declared as the Station House Officer, it will be very easy for the others to shirk their responsibility and not take up the investigation of the crime even though a duty has been cast upon all the police officers enrolled under the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, and the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 to suppress crimes. Therefore, the report filed by the Additional Commissioner of Police stating that the Assistant Commissioner of Police has been designated as officer in charge of the Central Crime Branch deserves acceptance and approval of this Court. If the Assistant Commissioner of Police is declared as Station House Officer for the Central Crime Branch, the Deputy Commissioner will become the authority under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.
40. It was contended at the Bar that the FIRs in the CCB cases are registered by Inspectors and not by the Assistant Commissioners of Police and therefore, that may give rise to new issues. The answer to this question lies in Section 154 Cr.P.C. which clearly states that the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence can be reduced to writing by the officers in charge of a police station or under his direction. Thus, on the directions of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, if an FIR is registered by the Inspector of Police, it will not stand vitiated. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that there was a time when a notorious nexus existed between the lower rung Central Crime Branch officials and some legal practitioners, under which, FIRs were registered in purely civil matters and settlements were arrived at in the Central Crime Branch. This nexus was broken and the power of the Inspectors to register FIRs was clipped by administrative orders by various Commissioners of Police to the effect that before recording an FIR, the approval of the Commissioner should have to be obtained. This procedure was taken to such a ludicrous extent that it was adversely commented by this Court in P. Satish Kumar vs. State (2014 (2) CTC 60), where, a learned Single Judge of this Court (S. Nagamuthu, J., as he then was) has lamented that a complaint of a bank fraud that was given on 11.01.2013 travelled from one desk to another and ultimately, fruitioned into an FIR only on 07.10.2013, by which time, the accused in that case, had all the time to cover up their tracks.
41. This Court is not for a moment saying that control levers should be dismantled, but, only exhorts that they should not become closure valves. In Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2014) 2 SCC 1], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has permitted preliminary enquiries in commercial offences and has also given a six week time period for that. Therefore, the Central Crime Branch is required to act with alacrity and complete the preliminary enquiry and also obtain clearance from the Commissioner of police in accordance with their administrative rules within a period of six weeks and take a decision whether to register or not to register the FIR. In the event of deciding not to register the FIR, reasons in regard thereto, should have to be furnished to the complainant so that the complainant can work out his remedies in the manner known to law.
42. Another argument that was advanced at the Bar is that the Commissioner of Police has no jurisdiction to fix monetary limits for investigation by the Central Crime Branch as that would offend the general power of the local police to register an FIR. It is true that every police officer in the City City draws his ration of power to detect and bring offenders to justice via Section 23 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, which reads as under:
23 Duties of police officers:
Every police officer shall, for the purposes of this Act, be considered to be always on duty. He shall not engage, without the written permission of the Commissioner, in any duty other than his duties under this Act. It shall be his duty to use his best endeavours and ability to prevent offences and public nuisances; to preserve the peace; apprehend disorderly and suspicious characters; to detect and bring offenders to justice; to take charge of all unclaimed property; to seize and impound stray cattle; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace, and promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him; and it shall be lawful for every Police officer, for any of the purposes mentioned in this section, without a warrant to enter and inspect any drinking shop, gaming house or other place or resort of loose or disorderly characters. (emphasis supplied)
43. Section 10 of the Chennai City Police Act empowers the Commissioner from time to time, subject to the control of the State Government, to frame orders and regulations for the general governance of the force. For effective governance of the City police, it is well within the powers of the Commissioner to issue such directives fixing the monetary limits. Though this direction cannot have the effect of overruling the statutory power of the local police to conduct investigation conferred by the Code, yet, on that score alone, the directive cannot be said to be illegal. In other words, if a Station House Officer of a local station ventures to take up the investigation of a case beyond Rs.50 lakhs in violation of the directives issued by the Commissioner, his investigation will not become tainted. However, if he refuses to take up the investigation in compliance with the directives issued by the Commissioner, he cannot be held criminally or departmentally liable because he is bound to obey such directives of the Commissioner. The idea behind issuing such order is to lessen the burden on the local police stations which are essentially required to maintain law and order, whereas, the Central Crime Branch was not constituted to deal with day-to-day law and order issues, but, to deal with white collar offences. Unlike the CB-CID which does not entertain complaints directly, the Central Crime Branch has been entertaining complaints from the general public and registering FIRs and investigating cases at least for the last 30 years. Thus, when they have been accepting complaints from the general public, there is no reason to say that they enjoy immunity under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
44. When a specific question was posed to the learned Public Prosecutor, after having gone through these documents, especially, the document of G.O.No.173 of the year 1929 that, whether these factors have been brought to the notice of this court before in any of such cases of this nature considered by this Court, the answer was in the negative. It means that G.O.No.173 dated 01.04.1929, so far has not been brought to the notice of this Court.
45. Only in this context, the learned Magistrate in the impugned order at Paragraph No.14 has specifically observed that in spite of sufficient time were granted, the petitioner side is unable to produce any document or G.O., to show that the CCB, Chennai, has been declared as Police Station as required under Section 2(s) of the Code.
46. Since these documents were not available before the learned Magistrate, he had come to the conclusion that the CCB, Chennai was never declared to be a police station under Section 2(s) of the Code. When CCB is not a police station, the police people in-charge of the CCB cannot be termed as officer in-charge of the police station within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Code and therefore, if at all any direction to be given invoking Section 156(3) of the Code, such direction cannot be issued to a non police station or a non officer in-charge of a police station.
47. Only in that context, the learned Magistrate, taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CBI, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan (cited supra) has come to the conclusion that the Magistrate, who orders investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, can only direct an officer in-charge of a police station to take such investigation and not a superior officer.
48. The learned Magistrate in that context would further add that, since the CCB is projected as a wing under the Commissioner of Police, such a direction, if it is given, it has to be given only to the Commissioner of Police, who is not the officer in-charge of a police station nor the CCB is a police station and therefore, such a direction cannot be issued by the Magistrate, as the Magistrate Court is not empowered under Section 156(3) of the Code to issue such direction.
49. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has given a categorical finding at Paragraph No.17 of the impugned order, as extracted hereinabove, that, the Commissioner of Police or the Officer of CCB, Chennai, cannot be considered as an officer in-charge of a police station. Therefore, the Commissioner of Police or the CCB, Chennai cannot be directed to investigate any case under Section 156(3) of the Code.
50. Now, it has been clarified without any iota of doubt by virtue of the document of the year 1929, and subsequent document that, the CCB, Chennai, has already been declared as a police station under Section 2(s) of the Code and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, in-charge of CCB, would be the officer in-charge of a police station. Even though the CCB is headed by the Commissioner of Police as per the organizational chart produced by the prosecution and an Additional Commissioner is heading the CCB, who is otherwise called as Adl. Commissioner CCB, the investigation, if at all to be ordered by a jurisdictional Magistrate, who can take cognizance trial of the cases investigated by the CCB, Chennai, he can do so by way of direction only to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and not to any other higher official. Therefore, to that extent, the issue can be settled with abundant clarity and confirmation.
51. Now, let us turn into the other ground, under which, the learned Magistrate has taken the decision that the petitions filed before the Court below was not maintainable. According to the learned Magistrate, as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka's case (cited supra), only after exhausting the procedure contemplated under Section 154 of the Code, one can approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) of the Code and since such steps had not been taken, the invocation of Section 156(3) does not arise. Therefore, the petition was not maintainable.
52. With regard to this second ground is concerned, number of judgments have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the members of the Bar, who appeared before this Court as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. Some of the judgments cited by the Bar are also examined, of course, in nutshell.
53. AIR 1961 SC 986 equivalent to 1961 23 Crl.LJ 39 [Gopal Das Sindhi and others v. State of Assam and Another] We cannot read the provisions of Section 190 to mean that once a complaint is filed, a Magistrate is bound to take cognizance if the facts stated in the complaint disclose the commission of any offence. We are unable to construe the word 'may' in Section 190 to mean 'must.' The reason is obvious. A complaint disclosing cognizable offences may well justify a Magistrate in sending the complaint, under Section 156(3) to the police for investigation. There is no reason why the time of the Magistrate should be wasted when primarily the duty to investigate in cases involving cognizable offences is with the police. On the other hand, there may be occasions when the Magistrate may exercise his discretion and take cognizance of a cognizable offence. If he does so then he would have to proceed in the manner [provided by Chapter XVI of the Code, Numerous cases were cited before us in support of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Certain submissions were also made as to what is meant by "taking cognizance."
54. (1976) 3 SCC 252 [Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others v. V.Narayana Reddy and others] 13.It is well settled that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint, disclose the commission of an offence. This is clear from the use of the words "may take cognizance" which in the context in which they occur cannot be equated with must take cognizance". The word "may" gives a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under s. 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.
55. (1997) 8 SCC 476 [Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar and others] From the foregoing discussion it is evident that whenever a magistrates directs an investigation on a 'complaint' the police has to register a cognizable case on that complaint treating the same as the FIR and comply with the requirements of the above Rules. It, therefore, passes our comprehension as to how the direction of a Magistrate asking the police to 'register a case' makes an order of investigation under Section 156(3) legally unsusteinable. Indeed, eve if Magistrate does not pass a direction to register a case, still in view of the provisions of Section 156(1) of the Code which empowers the Police to Investigate into a cognizable 'case' and the Rules framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861 it ( the Police) is duty bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same. The provisions of the Code, therefore, does not in any way stand in the way of a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case at the police station and then investigate into the same. In our opinion when an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code is to be made the proper direction to the Police would be to register a case at the police station treating the complaint as the First Information Report and investigate into the same.
56. 2006(1) SCC 627 [Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (smt) and Another] 16.There is no particular format of a complaint. A petition addressed to the magistrate containing an allegation that an offence has been committed, and ending with a prayer that the culprits be suitably dealt with, as in the instant case, is a complaint.
57. (2008) 1 MWN (Cr) 47 [Muthusankaralingam v. R.Suresh] 9.In fact, Section 210, Cr.P.C. deals with a situation where there is complaint case and a police investigation in respect of the same offence. Section 210, Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
210.Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence, -
(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such export cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
10.Apart from that if a complaint even under Section 190(1)(a), Cr.P.C. is given the learned Magistrate may either proceed under Chapter XV as mentioned above or under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may order for an investigation by the police. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed directly before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is not maintainable without giving any information to the police as contemplated under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is not acceptable in view of the reasons stated above.
58. (2013) 10 SCC 705 [Anilkumar and others v. M.K.Aiyappa and another] 16.A Special Judge is deemed to be a Magistrate under Section 5(4) of the PC Act and, therefore, clothed with all the magisterial powers provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a private complaint is filed before the Magistrate, he has two options. He may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C. or proceed further in enquiry or trial. A Magistrate, who is otherwise competent to take cognizance, without taking cognizance under Section 190, may direct an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, who is empowered under Section 190 to take cognizance, alone has the power to refer a private complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
59. (2015) 6 SCC 439 [Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat] 38.In Devrapalli Lakshminaryanan Reddy & Ors. vs. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors.[20], National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz & Anr.[21], Madhao & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[22], Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat[23], the scheme of Section 156(3) and 202 has been discussed. It was observed that power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before taking cognizance and was in the nature of pre-emptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation beginning Section 156 and ending with report or chargesheet under Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 applies at post cognizance stage and the direction for investigation was for the purpose of deciding whether there was sufficient ground to proceed.
60. The learned Magistrate has heavily relied upon the Priyanka's case reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287, where, their Lordships has held as follows.
30.In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.
31.We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.
61. 2011 (3) SCC 496 [Mona Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad through its Registrar and others] 18.When the complaint was presented before the appellant, the appellant had mainly two options available to her. One was to pass an order as contemplated by Section 156(3) of the Code and second one was to direct examination of the complainant upon oath and the witnesses present, if any, as mentioned in Section 200 and proceed further with the matter as provided by Section 202 of the Code. An order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation under Section 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 and ends with the final report either under Section 169 or submission of charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code. A Magistrate can under Section 190 of the Code before taking cognizance ask for investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the Code. The Magistrate can also issue warrant for production, before taking cognizance. If after cognizance has been taken and the Magistrate wants any investigation, it will be under Section 202 of the Code.
19.The phrase "taking cognizance of" means cognizance of offence and not of the offender. Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint or on a police report or upon information of a person other than a police officer. Before the Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code, he must have not only applied his mind to the contents of the complaint presented before him, but must have done so for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 and the provisions following that Section. However, when the Magistrate had applied his mind only for ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code or issued a warrant for the purposes of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of an offence.
62. Full Bench of Bombay High Court in Crl. Writ Petition No.270 of 2009 [Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani and others v. The State of Maharashtra through Senior Inspector, Mahatma Phule and others] 64. In view of our above discussion, we record our answers to the questions of law posed before us, as follow:-
Question No. (i) Whether in absence of a complaint to the police, a complaint can be made directly before a Magistrate ?
Answer Normally a person should invoke the provisions of Section 154 of the Code before he takes recourse to the power of the Magistrate competent to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code, under Section 156(3). Atleast an intimation to the police of commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154(1) would be a condition precedent for invocation of powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code. We would hasten to add here that this dictum of law is not free from exception.
There can be cases where non-compliance to the provisions of Section 154(3) would not divest the Magistrate of his jurisdiction in terms of Section 156(3). There could be cases where the police fail to act instantly and the facts of the case show that there is possibility of the evidence of commission of the offence being destroyed and/or tampered with or an applicant could approach the Magistrate underSection 156(3) of the Code directly by way of an exception as the Legislature has vested wide discretion in the Magistrate.
Question No. (ii) Whether without filing a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) and praying only for an action under Section 156(3), a complaint before a Magistrate was maintainable ?
Answer A Petition under Section 156(3) cannot be strictly construed as a complaint in terms of Section 2(d) of the Code and absence of a specific or improperly worded prayer or lack of complete and definite details would not prove fatal to a petition under Section 156(3), in so far as it states facts constituting ingredients of a cognizable offence. Such petition would be maintainable before the Magistrate.
65 We answer the questions of law accordingly. The matters be listed before a appropriate bench for disposal in accordance with law.
63. Supreme Court Judgment in Appeal (Crl.) 1685 of 2007 in the matter of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. And others.
24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is verybriefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.
25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
64. Judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9542 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.No.496/2015 [S.Madhiyazhagan v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police] 11.Thus the CBCID is an elite force within the police department that has been constituted to investigate cases, on the orders of Supreme Court, High Court, Government and Director General of Police. Therefore, the direction issued by the Magistrate to the CBCID under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate is not sustainable.
65. Overall scanning of the aforesaid judgments would reveal that, the power to give direction to investigate vested with the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) of the Code is not an automatic one and once the litigant knocked the doors of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code, it is not mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to act upon mechanically by giving a direction to the investigating officer to investigate the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code. The Magistrate must look into the matter, veracity of the complaint and if he is satisfied that the ingredients made in the complaint/petition would disclose the commission of an offence, then only, he can give such direction to the investigating officer to investigate.
66. The learned Magistrate can also take an alternative route by invoking the provisions of Sections 200 and 202 of the Code and investigate the matter on his own.
67. Though it was held by a learned Judge of this Court in 2008 (1) MWN Crime 47, that, the contention that the complaint filed directly before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not maintainable without giving any information to the police as contemplated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not acceptable, the said law, in my considered view, is no longer a good law, in view of the categorical declaration made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka's case, where at paragraph No.31 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, there has to be a prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code, while filing the petitions under Section 156(3). Since the said law, declared by the Apex Court, is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the learned Magistrates, were directed to be vigilant and diligent, while exercising the power under Section 156(3) of the Code, it cannot be construed that the complainant/petitioner can straight away approach the Magistrate Court, without exhausting the procedure contemplated under Section 154 of the Code. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Priyanka's case, the observations made by the learned Magistrate in this regard has to be sustained.
68. However, in view of the judgment in Sakiri Vasu's case, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is an implied power with the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code to order registration of an offence and direct the officer to hold a proper investigation, such power since is vested only with the Magistrate concerned, which cannot be abdicated by the Magistrate except for strong legal ground.
69. Here, in the case in hand, insofar as the first case is concerned, the complaint was given to the Commissioner of Police, who is none other than the Head of the CCB, Chennai. The Commissioner, on receipt of the complaint of the petitioner, had forwarded the same to an Inspector of Police, in-charge of a team of CCB Chennai for further investigation. When such investigation was not conducted and an FIR was not registered, the complainant/petitioner approached the Magistrate Court to exercise the power under Section 156(3) of the Code.
70. In this context, the initial approach of the complainant/petitioner before the Commissioner of Police can only be construed as the information in writing submitted to the officer in-charge of a police station both within the meaning of Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code. The reason being that, though the CCB, Chennai is headed by the Commissioner of Police, in fact, practically, it is headed and run by Additional Commissioner of Police, CCB, Chennai, under whom, number of Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and other Police Persons are employing. As per the declaration made by the Government, ie, the then Madras Governor in Council in the year 1929, the Assistant Commissioner in-charge of the General Investigation Section of Central Office of the Crime Department, Madras City Police will be the direct charge. Even at that time, the said Central Office Crime Department of Madras City Police was under the in-charge of the Commissioner of Police, under whom, a Deputy Commissioner assisted by an Assistant Commissioner were in office.
71. Thereafter, in the year 2005, the said Central Office of the Crime Department, Madras City Police, ie., the Central Crime Branch, called as CCB, Chennai, has been further strengthened by deployment of more officers and staffs. Though one Assistant Commissioner was declared as an officer in-charge of the Station for CCB in the year 1929, since the said CCB was expanded, number of officers had been deployed. Hence, such officers ie., Assistant Commissioners, whatever number may be, certainly be the officers in-charge of a police station and in that context every Assistant Commissioner of the CCB will be the officer in-charge of the police station under Section 2(o) of the Code.
72. Therefore, if at all direction is to be given by a Magistrate invoking Section 156(3) of the Code to the CCB, Chennai, such direction can be given to the concerned Assistant Commissioner in-charge of the CCB, who would be investigating the complaint.
73. In this case, since the petitioner had already given complaint to the Commissioner, who had forwarded the same to the Inspector of Police for investigation, the legal requirement to approach first the investigating agency ie., the police, has already been complied with by the complainant/petitioner within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code and therefore, the petitioner has satisfied the mandatory formalities as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka's case.
74. Therefore, for the alleged non compliance of Section 154 of the Code shall not be attributed to the case of the petitioner herein and therefore, on that ground ie., the second ground mainly quoted by the learned Magistrate, the petition should not have been dismissed.
75. Insofar as the second case is concerned, apart from these two reasons, a third reason has been given by the learned Magistrate in the said impugned order, which is assailed in the second revision that, the petitioner in support of the petition had not filed an affidavit, which is also mandated in Priyanka's case. No doubt, in Paragraph 30 of the Priyanka's case, the Apex Court has clearly mandated that, under Section 156(3) of the Code, the applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant, who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
76. In the second case, admittedly, no affidavit was filed. Therefore, the petitioner therein had not complied with the said mandatory direction given by the Apex Court in Priyanka's case. Hence, the third ground or reason cited by the learned Magistrate for dismissing the said petition, can be sustained.
77. Even in respect of the second case, the first two grounds, namely, the CCB is not a police station nor the officer in-charge is not the officer in-charge of a police station within the meaning of Sections 2(s) and 2(o) of the Code and also the ground that the petitioner did not approach the police/investigating agency having jurisdiction over the issue by way of supplying information either orally or in writing within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code, cannot be accepted, as the first two grounds, since have been satisfied by both the petitioners in both the revision cases, on those grounds, the petitions ought not to have been rejected.
78. The learned Magistrate has given one more reason as an off shoot of the main ground for rejection of the petition in the following terms:
18.Further, the G.O. issued for the constitution of this Court itself would show that this Court has been established for the exclusive trial of CCB cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases. It means, this Court is having jurisdiction only to conduct trial in cheating related cases dealt by CCB, Chennai, or the cases handled by CBCID Metro wing. Whereas, the present petition is private complaint in nature, which cannot be construed as a CCB case (relating to cheating case in Chennai) simply because of the reason that the petitioner requested to direct the CCB, Chennai to investigate in the matter of the CCB, Chennai has been made as respondent in the petition. The case is also not in trial stage. It is also to be pointed out the basic principle is that a party cannot be permitted to opt the investigation officer at his wish and whims.
79. In this context, the relevant G.O., under which the said Court was constituted can also be looked into.
80. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.242 Home Courts II Department dated 15.03.2012, which reads thus:
3.The Government have examined the proposal of the Registrar General, High Court of Madras carefully and decided to accept it. Accordingly, sanction is accorded for the constitution of a new Court in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Chennai for exclusive trial of Central Crime Branch cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and Crime Branch Criminal investigation Department Metro Cases in Chennai. Sanction is also accorded for creation of the following staff to the above Court at a recurring expenditure of Rs.41,76,000/- under salaries. They are eligible to draw pay and allowances under the rules in force from time to time.
81. Pursuant to the above, the Government issued G.O. (Ms.) No.522, Home (Courts II) Department dated 17.07.2013 which reads as under:
Under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Central Act 2 of 1974), the Governor of Tamil Nadu, after consultation with the High Court, Madras, hereby establishes a Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge at Chennai for the exclusive trial of Central Crime Branch cases relating to cheating and Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department Metro Cases.
82. The aforesaid Government Order has fathered the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for the exclusive trial of CCB/CB-CID cases. This Court has been established under Section 16 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
16 Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates:
1) In every metropolitan area, there shall be established as many Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates, and at such places, as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, specify.
2) The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court.
3) The jurisdiction and powers of every Metropolitan Magistrate shall extend throughout the metropolitan area.
83. The judicial officer manning this Court has not been conferred with special powers under Section 18 of the Code. Thus, the Magistrate for CCB/CB-CID cases is yet another Metropolitan Magistrate subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Under Section 19(3) of the Code, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has the power to distribute business amongst the Metropolitan Magistrates. By virtue of the powers under Section 19(3) of the Code, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has issued office orders, from time to time, assigning some Magistrates with certain specific businesses. For instance, in Egmore, the VI Metropolitan Magistrate has been assigned the task of dealing with Railway Protection Force cases. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate for CCB/CB-CID Cases extends throughout the metropolitan area by virtue of Section 16 (3) Cr.P.C. This territorial jurisdiction appears to be co-extensive with the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Crime Branch. Just because, in G.O (Ms.) No.522, Home (Courts II) Department dated 17.07.2013, the expression trial has been used, it does not mean that the said Magistrate does not have the power to remand the accused or take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. When once he has the power to take cognizance on the final report filed by the Central Crime Branch, he would automatically have the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order investigation.
84. When a particular Court has been constituted by the Government under the relevant provisions of law by issuance of executive order, where the Court is entrusted with exclusive jurisdiction to try particular type of cases, the said Court alone will have jurisdiction to try those cases. Here, in the case in hand, the learned Magistrate Court was constituted to try cases being investigated by the Central Crime Branch, (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department, Metro Cases in Chennai. With regard to these two type of cases, we have no quarrel. With regard to CBCID Metro Cases in Chennai are concerned, as those two revision cases are not falling under that category, these two cases, whether to be investigated by the CCB, Chennai or by the regular police station is concerned, in view of the standing orders issued by the Government, the crime involving more than the value of Rs.50 lakhs is to be investigated only by the CCB, Chennai, such type of cases are taken up for investigation by the CCB, Chennai. Unless some type of cases are investigated by the CCB, Chennai, the purpose of constituting the special Court ie., the present Magistrate Court under G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 15.03.2012 would be defeated.
85. The Special Court was constituted only for the exclusive trial of CCB cases as well as CBCID cases. If particular category of cases are exclusively to be investigated only by CCB, Chennai, and in such cases, if the CCB, Chennai has not investigated in spite of the information given by the complainant/petitioner before the police officer concerned, certainly, such complainant/petitioner shall be entitled to invoke the power vest with the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) of the Code. Here, in the case in hand, such power to exercise under sub section 3 of Section 156 of the Code, insofar as the cases to be investigated by the CCB are concerned, is vest only with the Special Magistrate Court constituted under G.O.Ms.No.242.
86. When such being the position, the learned Magistrate cannot shirk his responsibility and state that, his Court has been constituted for the purpose of exclusive trial of CCB cases and CBCID cases and therefore, merely because a petition was filed before the said Court seeking direction to the CCB, it cannot be construed as a case to be investigated by the CCB. Hence, such refusal to give direction by the said Magistrate Court is absolutely unjustifiable, because, when an exclusive Court is constituted, there must be source of litigation to that Court, where the jurisdiction will play a major role.
87. Here, in the case in hand, the jurisdiction of the CCB, even according to the 1929 document, is the city of Madras including all places within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. If that being so, the entire City jurisdiction within the original jurisdiction being exercised by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, shall be the jurisdiction for the purpose of investigating cases by the CCB, Chennai.
88. Therefore, the present Magistrate Court empowered to try cases investigated by CCB, Chennai, will have the jurisdiction to give direction to the CCB, Chennai, even under Section 156(3) of the Code, as, for such a relief, the litigant, who approached the CCB for investigation, cannot approach any other regular Magistrate, as jurisdiction of CCB cases has been specifically mentioned and has been entrusted to the Special Court constituted in this regard.
89. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have stated that he is the Judge of the said cases to be tried from CCB Chennai and CBCID Chennai and therefore, he cannot give direction to the CCB, Chennai. Such a stand will be contradictory as the learned Magistrate is empowered to investigate only the CCB, Chennai and CBCID, Chennai cases and not any other cases. Therefore, that additional reason also, as has been given by the learned Magistrate to reject the petition, is untenable and therefore, the same is rejected.
90. Insofar as the cases of CBCID is concerned, since CBCID is investigating the cases on the orders of the Supreme Court, High Court, Government and Director General of Police, it is a specialized wing or elite force within the police department and therefore, for investigation of such kind of cases, the learned Special Magistrate trying the cases of the CBCID is not empowered to give direction under Section 156(3) of the Code. I am in complete agreement with the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court made in Crl.O.P.No.9542 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.No.496/2015 in the matter of S.Madhiyazhagan v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police. However, the said reasonings, insofar as CBCID cases, given by the learned Judge would not be applicable to the cases to be investigated or handled by the CCB, Chennai.
91. The birth of the CCB, Chennai has been traced now, as it has come into play from 1929 with a proper sanction of the then Madras Presidency Governor in Council and it has already been declared as a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code and the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the CCB has been declared as the officer in-charge of the police station within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Code. In this respect, the CCB, Chennai cannot be compared with CBCID.
92. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects by taking into account the overall scenario of the issue raised in this case and after having gone through the various materials placed before this Court and having considered the law declared by the Courts of law and also the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, especially, in Priyanka's case, this Court is of the considered view that, the first two reasonings given by the learned Magistrate for dismissal of the petitions through the impugned orders are unsustainable.
93. Insofar as the second case is concerned, the reason that the said petitioner had not filed any affidavit as mandated by the Apex Court in Priyanka's case is concerned, the said reason is sustainable and therefore, for that reason, the dismissal of the second petition, which is the subject matter of Crl.R.C.No.541/2017, is to be accepted.
94. For the sake of clarity and for action in future, insofar as CCB, Chennai City, is concerned and also the Special Court constituted in this regard to try exclusively the cases to be investigated by the CCB, Chennai, the following declarations and directions are issued:
(a) Central Crime Branch, Chennai City police is a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ;
(b) All Assistant Commissioners of Police employed or pressed into service in Central Crime Branch, Chennai City, are officers in-charge of the police station within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Code.
(c) If the Officer in-charge ie., the Assistant Commissioner of CCB refused to entertain/receive such complaint, the aggrieved complainant can approach the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCB, under Section 154(3) of the Code.
(d) Before invocation of Section 156(3) of the Code, the complainant/petitioner must have complied with the procedure contemplated under Section 154 (1) and (3) of the Code ;
(e) A petition filed before the Court for invocation of Section 156(3) of the Code must be accompanied with an affidavit duly sworn in by such complainant/petitioner, without which, such petition shall not be entertained;
(f) The Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai constituted under G.O.Ms.No.242, Home (Courts II) Department dated 15.03.2012 shall be the exclusive Court only for the cases entrusted or investigated by CCB, Chennai and CBCID, Metro cases, Chennai. The jurisdiction for the said Court insofar as the CCB Cases are concerned, to the whole of Chennai City within the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Madras High Court;
(g) Since the Metropolitan Magistrate Court for exclusive trial of CCB and CBCID Cases is the special Court to try those two category of cases, such Magistrate shall be the Magistrate for exercising power under Section 156(3) of the Code to give suitable directions to the officers in-charge at CCB, Chennai. If any such direction is given by the Magistrate, CCB cases, Chennai, invoking Section 156(3) of the Code, such investigation shall be undertaken by any one of the Assistant Commissioner of Police employing or in-charge of CCB, Chennai and such investigation shall be undertaken only by such Assistant Commissioner, who will be assisted by other lower level officers ;
(h) The aforesaid directions shall be scrupulously followed by the said Special Magistrate and all the stake holders of CCB, Chennai and the litigant public;
95. In view of the aforesaid declarations and directions, the rejection order made in, by the learned Magistrate, through the impugned order dated 25.01.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.107/2017, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration under Section 156(3) of the Code and the Magistrate is directed to pass necessary orders on merits of the said petition filed by the petitioner herein within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
96. To that extent, Crl.R.C.No.271/2017 is allowed.
97. Insofar as the impugned order made in Crl.M.P.No.1182/2016 dated 25.01.2017 by the learned Magistrate is concerned, the said order, except giving the reason of non filing of affidavit to support the petition, for all other reasons is set aside. Since the petitioner in that case, admittedly, has not filed any supporting affidavit to the petition, the said petition cannot be entertained and therefore, in that aspect, the order of the learned Magistrate is upheld. However, it is open to the petitioner to resubmit the petition with supporting affidavit by scrupulous compliance of the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka's case reported in [(2015) 6 SCC 287].
98. To that extent indicated above, the Crl.R.C.No.541/2017 is ordered accordingly.
31.07.2018 Index : Yes Internet : Yes RR / smi To
1.The Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, (Relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID, Metro cases, Chennai
2.The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai
3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team XVII A Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
R.SURESH KUMAR,J., RR / smi Orders made in Crl.R.C.Nos.271 of 2017 and 541 of 2017 31.07.2018