Madras High Court
R.Rajendran vs M/S.V.S.S.Metal Containers on 31 July, 2007
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31/07/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6264 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007 1.R.Rajendran 2.S.V.P.N.S.N.Balaranjit Singh 3.S.V.P.N.S.N.B.Kannan 4.S.V.P.N.S.N.R.Kumar 5.S.V.P.N.S.N.R.Bose 6.S.V.P.N.S.N.R.Sekar 7.Bose ... Petitioners Vs. 1.M/s.V.S.S.Metal Containers, represented by Its Partner, V.S.S.Baskaran 2.The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to Cr.No.521 of 2007 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Kannan ^For Respondents ... Mr.P.Rajendran Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R2. Mr.G.Mariappan for R1. :ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to Cr.No.521 of 2007 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.
2.Heard both sides.
3. The background facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus:
The second respondent/complainant lodged a complaint with the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, as against the accused who are the petitioners herein, for the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and thereafter, the learned Magistrate has chosen to order investigation by the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. However, the police on receipt of such proceedings from the Magistrate has chosen to register an F.I.R under Section 154 Cr.P.C in the prescribed format and started investigating into the matter.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such procedure adopted by the police, the petitioners have chosen to file this petition for quashing the F.I.R.
6. Since, ex facie and prima facie, there is impropriety in the procedure adopted by the police in registering the F.I.R based on the communication from the Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C, I called for explanation from the Magistrate as to whether the communication sent was under Section 202 Cr.P.C or under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
7. The learned Magistrate promptly replied, that the communication was sent to the police only under Section 202 Cr.P.C and that was found mentioned in her proceedings also.
8. Hence, in these circumstances, it is crystal clear, what the learned Magistrate forwarded was not the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but the learned Magistrate expected that the police should investigate the matter under Section 202 Cr.P.C and produce materials before her in the matter relating to which already she has taken cognizance of.
9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that even though what was forwarded to the police by the learned Magistrate was one under Section 202 Cr.P.C., yet the police in compliance with Section 154 Cr.P.C properly registered the F.I.R and started investigation. In support his view, he cited the following decisions:
(i) Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in 2001 (1) MWN (Cr.) SC 105.
(ii)S.Pareemalam v. The Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by the Superintendent of Police, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai reported in 2005(1)MWN (Cr.) 110.
(iii)S.Pangajam v. The Inspector of Police reported in 2005(2) MWN (Cr.)
117.
10. I also recollect the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court:
(i) Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra reported in AIR 1968 SC 117.
(ii) H.S.Bains, v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), reported in AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1883.
(iii) TULA RAM V. KISHORE SINGH, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 459.
(iv) Popular Muthiah v. State reported in (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 245.
11. The perusal of those precedents wound demonstrate that the registration of the F.I.R was wrong. It is at once clear that if the learned Magistrate without taking cognizance of the case, ordered the complaint to be forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, then, the police would have been duty bound to register F.I.R and proceed with the matter and ultimately file report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, in either way so to say either he could hold no case made out or not. but on the other hand, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance, forwards the complaint under Section 202 Cr.P.C to the police official to investigate and submit the materials gathered in that connection, then the police officer is not at all empowered to register F.I.R by invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and he cannot take a final stand either a case is made out or not made. After taking cognizance based on the complaint forwarded by the learned Magistrate, the police has no jurisdiction to register F.I.R under Section 154 Cr.P.C, otherwise it would amount to putting the horse behind the cart.
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a point how the police officer could investigate into the matter without registering the F.I.R. Here, after taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate directs the police to help the Magistrate for gathering evidence and that is all and in such a case, no registration of F.I.R is required, but the police has to submit only materials gathered before the Magistrate. But, on the other hand, in the event of registering the F.I.R in compliance with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the police officer is having more discretion to file report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., but that is not the case with regard to investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C.
13. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the F.I.R in Cr.No.521 of 2007 on the file of the second respondent, has to be quashed and accordingly quashed without prejudice to the materials collected or to be collected by the police to be handed over to the learned Magistrate who is expected to proceed further with the private complaint case as per law after receipt of such materials from the police.
14. With the above observation, this petition is closed. Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.2 of 2007 is closed.
rsb To
1.The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station, Virudhunagar.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.