S. 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate Has Discretion To Direct Police Investigation Into Complaint Without Passing Elaborate Orders: AP High Court
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a quashing petition filed by an accused on the ground that the Magistrate was right in forwarding the complaint to the police as it disclosed various cognizable offences and the police can thoroughly investigate the matter. “The complaint at hand is a prayer to the Magistrate himself to inquire into and proceed further. In such an...
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a quashing petition filed by an accused on the ground that the Magistrate was right in forwarding the complaint to the police as it disclosed various cognizable offences and the police can thoroughly investigate the matter.
“The complaint at hand is a prayer to the Magistrate himself to inquire into and proceed further. In such an event, two options were available for the learned Magistrate. He may embark upon enquiry in terms of Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC. The other alternative available for him was to forward the complaint to the police for investigation,” it was held.
Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioner was appointed as a single trustee in 2008 to perform the function of Archaka in a temple. Due to allegations of mismanagement, dishonesty, and misappropriation of funds, it was submitted that the petitioner was relieved from duties and a written complaint was filed by the de facto complainants to the Magistrate. The Magistrate referred the complaint to SHO for investigation and report. Acting upon it, the FIR was registered. In the chargesheet, the petitioner was charged with cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property.
The petitioner contended that the procedures under Section 154 CrPC were not complied with i.e. before filing the complaint to the Magistrate, the complainant has to attempt to have FIR registered and if the police fail to register such FIR, the grievance has to be put before the Superintendent of Police. But the written complaint failed to disclose these two procedural aspects.
Moreover, it was argued that an order of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) must contain brief reasons for forwarding the complaint to the police. But the order herein was bereft of reasons. As a consequence, the complaint and the order failed to comply with the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), it was submitted.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel for de-facto complainants submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet prima facie disclose cognizable offences and cannot be quashed.
Issue
Whether facts indicate an innocent being put to criminal prosecution in violation of any procedural or substantive rights requiring this court to exercise powers in u/s 482 CrPC?
Observation of the Court
Justice Dr VRK Krupa Sagar observed that the charge sheet as it stands now makes serious allegations of misappropriation of funds such as lease amounts received, and land acquisition compensation received but not accounted for which constitute cognizable offences. There are many facts that are alleged and denied which necessitates a trial to find out the truth.
Furthermore, it was observed that the ruling in Priyanka Srivastava was not applicable as there is no misuse of criminal justice machinery in the present case.
In the facts herein, the complaint before the Magistrate did not straight away request the Magistrate to forward the complaint to the police for FIR and investigation. Instead, the complaint contained the prayer that the Magistrate himself inquire into the matter. Since the complaint alleged various cognizable offences, the Magistrate exercised its power under Section 156(3) of CrPC for police to investigate into voluminous documents and records maintained by temple trustee. The complaint was thoroughly investigated and a charge sheet was also filed. The accused cannot raise this issue at a belated stage. Additionally, Supreme Court in M/s Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra (2021) held that the order of Magistrate in forwarding a complaint to the police under Section 156(3) does not really require any elaboration except a direction, it was held.
In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the criminal petition is dismissed.
Case number: CRLP 5562 of 2019
(Parties name redacted due to privacy concerns)