Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Rs. 5 crore sent by S.M.Krishna through his son- in-law V.G. Siddhartha on two occasions and Rs. 5 crore sent by S.M. Krishna through DIG Jayaprakash.

2. Rs. 1 crore sent by Parvathamma in Chennai and given in M.Karunanidhi's house

3. Rs. 2 crore handed over personally by Parvathamma to Bhanu in her house in Indiranagar, Bangalore

4. Rs. 2 crore given by the film industry people in M.Karunanidhi's house at Chennai."

3. Based on the said writings, the complainant presented a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the respondents for the offence under Section 120B r/w 34 IPC alleging that the respondents have conspired and actually participated in the conspiracy for the release of the Cine star. On the presentation of the complaint, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, referred the matter to the High Ground Police for investigation and report in pursuance of the Memo filed by the Complainant on 11.2.2003. The Inspector of Police, High Ground Police Station submitted a report expressing his inability to register a case either under Section 154 Cr.P.C or under Section 156 Cr.P.C on the ground that the complainant did not disclose any criminal offence. After the report was submitted by the Inspector of Police, High Ground Police Station, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, issued notice to the complainant, who appeared before the Court on 31.2.2003 and filed objections with a prayer to reject the report of the station House Officer and redirect the station House Officer to investigate the matter under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, by his order dated 1.4.2003 dismissed the complaint with the reasoning that no sufficient, sustainable and substantial grounds are made out by the complainant to redirect the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter. It is this order of dismissal of the complaint which is questioned in the present revision.

5. Learned Counsel Sri C.V.Nagesh for the respondents contended that Section 2(d) Cr.P.C enables any person to file a complaint and it must contain the specific allegations and on such complaint, the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to deal with it. The complaint must contain and disclose a cognizable or a non-cognizable offence to take action in the matter. If the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, then action has to be taken under Section 190 Cr.P.C and the procedure laid down under Section 200 Cr.P.C has to be followed. If the learned Magistrate forms an opinion that the complaint discloses a non-cognizable offence, he may refer the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation. Learned Counsel has further contended that Section 156(1) Cr-P.C. empowers the police officer to register a case as provided under Section 154 Cr.P.C. whereas Section 156(3) Cr.P.C provides for the Magistrate to direct investigation in respect of cognizable offences. Further Section 202 Cr.P.C also provides for a direction, may be, in relation to cognizable or non-cognizable offences and contended that Section 155(2) Cr.P.C is only in respect of non- cognizable offences, Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for cognizable offences and Section 202(2) Cr.P.C in respect of both offences after taking cognizance by the Court. Learned Counsel further submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate is dated 11.2.2003 referring the matter to the High Grounds Police Station for investigation and report. The order does not say for investigation and report. If the complaint discloses an offence, the police officer is bound to register a case in respect of cognizable offence as provided under Section 154 Cr.P.C and investigate under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. In the present case, the complaint itself did not disclose whether it is a cognizable or a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, the Inspector submitted the report. It is thereafter, notice was issued to the Complainant. He having appeared filed his objections and requested the Court to refer the matter under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C for investigation of a non-cognizable offence. It is after hearing both sides, the impugned order came to be passed. In the present case, the question of providing an opportunity to prove the case of the complainant also does not arise as no cognizance was taken by the Court as required under Section 190 Cr.P.C. When once the cognizance is not taken, the question of considering the request of the complainant to refer the matter again under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C does not arise. When the learned Additional C.M.M has not chosen to take cognizance and dismissed the complaint in limine as the complaint did not disclose any offence, the order of the learned C.M.M does not suffer from any infirmities and justified the impugned order.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned."

Sub-section (1) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. enables the police officer to investigate into the matter in respect of cognizable offences. Sub-section (2) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. is an unlimited power of the Investigating Officer which cannot be called in question. Apart from that, Sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C enables the Magistrate to make an investigation upon receiving the complaint as provided under Section 190(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the fact that the Investigating Officer of the High Grounds Police Station has submitted the report, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Magistrate to find out whether the complaint consists of certain facts which constitute an offence.

"When the allegation made in the complaint does not disclose cognizable offence, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order police investigation under Sub-section (3). In the present case, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind had directed an investigation by the police. Such an order which is passed without application of mind is clearly an order without jurisdiction. Therefore, the order passed directing the police to investigate under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C passed without jurisdiction is liable to be quashed by this Court either under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. We find from the materials on record, the learned Magistrate has not at all applied his mind before directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If the Magistrate had applied his mind, the Magistrate could have found that no cognizable offence in made out even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are accepted."