Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner is Sri Kanumuri Venkata Subba Raju native of East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh is a resident of USA filed the petition representing through his father as Special Power of Attorney(for short, 'the SPA') impugning the docket order of the learned Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class(for short, 'the AJMFC'), Kothapet, East Godavari in Crl.M.P.No.978 of 2013, dt.26.06.2014. A private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant before the AJMFC, Kothapet, who referred the same to police u/sec.156(3) of CrPC, for registration and investigation and the police, Atreyapuram Police Station registered the same as Cr.No.47 of 2012 for the offences punishable u/sec.3, 406, 408, 415, 417, 420 r/w 34 IPC and after investigation filed final report referring the case is civil in nature. It is aggrieved by the same, the complainant field an application before the Court in Crl.M.P.No.978 of 2013 seeking further investigation in which a note was put up which speaks "The petitioner/defacto-complainant prays through his counsel that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order to direct the police to conduct re-investigation to place truth before the Hon'ble Court." Based on that, the learned Magistrate passed docket order dt.29.11.2014 which speaks "Heard, received the petition, satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the petition. Hence, the complaint forwarded to DSP, Amalapuram for re-investigation and DSP, Amalapuram is directed to investigate the matter and file report by 08.08.2014." The matter from 08.08.2014 coming for report of the DSP, Amalapuram to 08.09.2014 on which day ordered to issue show cause notice to the DSP, Amalapuram, for not complying the orders of the Court and the Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram present and filed memo duly signed by DSP, Amalapuram seeking further time for filing report, on which heard and extended time till 29.12.2014 and meantime note was put up on the docket order showing that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajahmundry, passed order dt.29.11.2014 saying the entire Crime No.47 of 2012 transferred to II AJMFC, Kakinada(Designate Court for CID) as per the Memo filed by the DSP,Rajahmundry,dt.29.11.2014. On 29.12.2014, the docket order shows that the complainant absent, petition filed and allowed and orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate(for short, 'the CJM') vide Dis.No.1225/15.12.2014 are received. Hence, the office is directed to transfer FIR and entire crime record in Cr.No.47 of 2012 of Atreyapuram Police Station to II AJMFC, Kakinada(Designated Court of CID). With reference to the memo of the DSP, Regional Office, CID, Rajahmundry dt.29.11.2014 (even date), the CJM, at Rajahmundry, passed the order which speaks "Pursuant to the memo filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Regional Office, CID, Rajahmundry, under reference cited above, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kotahpet is hereby directed to transfer the FIR, and entire crime record in Cr.No.47/2012 U/s.3,406,408,415, 417 and 420 r/w 34IPc and Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. of Atreypuram Police Station to the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada (designated Court of C.I.D)".

2. From what is referred supra, coming to the petition of the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.978 of 2013, it is averred of accused deceived and caused wrongful loss to the complainant of about 4.5Crores and a private complaint filed was referred to police for investigation on 10.05.2012 from which the Cr.No.47 of 2012 was registered by the SHO, Atreyapuram who examined the complainant and two more witnesses viz:

Ch.Sridhar and Rajesh Agarwal who aware of the facts and earlier mediated between the accused and the complainant to settle the issue but for the past one year, there is no progress in the investigation and the complainant was not called by the police for further investigation though he is waiting to cooperate to the police in the investigation. While so, to his shock and surprise on 16.04.2013 he was served information by registered post stating police filed referred report of the case is civil in nature before the learned AJFCM, Kothapeta and advised to approach the Court for any grievance. After receipt of private complaint except registering FIR and examining two witnesses besides the complainant, the police did nothing and police wantonly failed in ascertaining truth by investigation in relation to the financial fraud caused to the complainant. The final report dt.09.04.2013 filed before the JFCM on 09.04.2013 by police shows after obtaining legal opinion and from the permission of the superior police officer-the DSP, Amalapuram, the case referred as civil in nature but the police did not conduct proper investigation and did not even examine documents enclosed with the complaint and being influenced by the accused, the referred report was filed who washed off the hands and even the complaint averments in page 22 constitute liability civil as well as criminal. The investigating officer ignored Section 188CrPC and guidelines of the Apex Court in referring the case as civil in nature and it is not correct to say in India no law permits for prosecution of persons in such cases which fall under the same facts. Pending investigation the accused moved to High Court to quash the FIR vide Crl.P.No.5637 of 2012 that was ended in dismissal observing investigation shall go on and further held the plea taken by the accused constitutes only civil liability is negated and the same was not mentioned in the final report by police. As police did not conduct real investigation to place the truth before the Court, the Court is still empowered to conduct further investigation.
3. It is not even mentioned that the learned Magistrate did not accept the final report filed by the police. Before accepting the final report filed by police, there is no necessity of hearing the complainant by the learned Magistrate. Once such is the case, the final report if at all accepted by the learned Magistrate but for to treat the petition as protest to proceed as a private complaint procedure from said protest against the police referred report in showing how the investigation is not proper and how cognizance can be taken by recording sworn statement of complainant and other witnesses by the Court with what referred facts of those already examined by the police during investigation. The learned Magistrate did not even resort to the recourse in its docket order referred supra which is no doubt mistakenly put up note as if asked for re-investigation in ordering by the impugned docket order, dt.26.06.2014 by the AJFCM, Kothapet in nominating the DSP Amalapuram for re-investigation contemplated by Section 156(3) CrPC and if at all to know progress of investigation and to conduct further investigation pending acceptance of the final report by the Magistrate. After acceptance the Magistrate has no power at all even to order further investigation, leave about the re-investigation is outside the power of the Magistrate from the settled expressions of the Apex Court which stated vividly by referring to 31 expressions earlier of the Apex Court and of some High Court's in Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali1 where it is held para-21 onwards that investigation can be initial investigation, further investigation, fresh/ de-novo/re-investigation and initial investigation is being conducted by the police in furtherance of registration of crime leading to filing of final report u/sec.173(1)CrPC within the police prerogative to investigate including from any order of Magistrate on any private complainant referred to police under Section 156 (3) CrPC. So far as the further investigation concerned, which is to collect further oral or documentary material after police final report filed, which is in terms of Section 173(8) CrPC vested with the police as executive power in continuation to the previous investigation to discover further oral or documentary material only from what they discovered at a subsequent 2013 5 SCC 762 stage to the initial investigation from which final report filed to file from such further investigation as supplementary report to supplement the primary investigation and it does not effect by wiping out directly or indirectly initial investigation covered by the final report and the basis of discovery of fresh material is in continuation of same offence and chain of events relating to same occurrence as a complete contra-distinction to re-