Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C
ou
BENCHATAURANGABAD
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
....PETITIONER.
ig
h
2}
om
ba
y
1}
Versus
rt
2}
ig
h
C
ou
1}
ba
y
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.847 OF 2014
om
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Station Officer,
Police Station, Shivajinagar,
Nanded, at & District-Nanded.
2}
1}
WITH
C
ou
rt
2}
3}
om
ba
y
ig
h
1}
Versus
2}
1}
WITH
C
ou
rt
ig
h
1}
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through Station Officer,
Police Station Shivajinagar,
Nanded, at and Dist. Nanded.
2}
om
ba
y
1}
1}
2}
3}
4}
6}
C
ou
5}
rt
ig
h
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through P.I. Police Station, Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2}
ba
y
1}
WITH
om
1}
1}
2}
C
ou
rt
WITH
2}
3}
ba
y
ig
h
1}
5}
om
4}
6}
7}
1}
C
ou
2}
rt
...RESPONDENTS.
ig
h
ba
y
1}
Versus
1}
2}
om
....PETITIONER.
WITH
C
ou
1}
rt
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Shivajinagar, Nanded.
2}
ig
h
1}
...RESPONDENTS.
ba
y
( Orig. Complainant)
om
1}
WITH
1}
2}
Police Inspector,
Police Station, Mukhed,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS.
rt
WITH
C
ou
ig
h
1}
Versus
2}
Police Inspector,
Police Station, Mukhed,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded
ba
y
1}
om
3}
rt
10
2}
3}
ig
h
1}
C
ou
Versus
...RESPONDENTS.
ba
y
om
1}
....PETITIONER.
Versus
1}
2}
Police Inspector,
Police Station, Mukhed,
Tq. And Dist. Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS.
Mr.Abhay D.Ostwal and K.D. Jadhav, Advocates
For Petitioner.
Mr.M.M. Nerlikar A.P.P. For Res.Nos. 1 and
2.
WITH
1}
C
ou
rt
11
....PETITIONER.
ig
h
Versus
Hilas S/o Bhata Mahajan
Age. 63 years, Occ. Pensioner,
R/o 74, Ramkrushna Nagar,
Nakane Road, Deopur,
Tq. and District. Dhule.
2}
ba
y
1}
4}
om
3}
5}
WITH
1}
ig
h
2}
3}
ba
y
4}
om
1}
2}
C
ou
rt
12
....PETITIONERS.
Versus
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
13
CORAM:A.B.CHAUDHARI&
INDIRAK.JAIN,JJ.
JUDGMENTRESERVEDON:19.10.2015
JUDGMENTPRONOUNCEDON:21.10.2015
C
ou
rt
JUDGMENT(PerA.B.Chaudhari,J.):
1]
ig
h
thisCourtisasunder:
ba
y
om
whetherremedyofrevisionu/s397or
2]
challengetotheordermadebytheMagistrateu/s156(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referredtoasthe'Code'forbrevity),hasbeenraised
inthesematterseitherbywayofCriminalWritPetitions
14
rt
underArticles226and227oftheConstitutionofIndia
C
ou
oru/s482oftheCodewiththesubmissionthatthereis
noremedyoffilingrevisioneitherbeforetheSessions
CourtorthisCourtsincetheorderu/s156(3)wouldbe
aninterlocutoryorder.
ig
h
3]
ba
y
om
maintainable.Wehaveperusedthereasoninginparagraph
nos.4 and 5 of the said judgment and we find that the
reasonassignedisthatsuchanorderu/s156(3)ofthe
Codewasnotanorderissuingprocessbutonlyanorder
issuingdirectionsforinvestigation.Thereisnoother
reason given for holding that the revision was not
maintainable.
4]
Section156inentiretyreadsthus:
15
rt
(1)
C
ou
cognizablecase:
ig
h
(2)
ba
y
whichsuchofficerwasnotempoweredunderthis
sectiontoinvestigate.
om
5]
mentioned.
thus:
202.Postponementofissueofprocess:
(1)
ofanoffenceofwhichheisauthorisedtotake
cognizance or which has been made over to him
under section 192, may, if he thinks fit,
16
rt
C
ou
ordirectaninvestigationtobemadebyapolice
officerorbysuchotherpersonashethinksfit,
forthepurposeofdecidingwhetherornotthere
issufficientgroundforproceeding:
investigationshallbemade,
ig
h
(a)whereitappearstotheMagistratethat
the offence complained of is triable
exclusivelybytheCourtofSession;or
(b)wherethecomplainthasnotbeenmadeby
a Court, unless the complainant and the
witnesses present (if any) have been
ba
y
examinedonoathundersection200.
(emphasissupplied)
Section156(3)oftheCodeisinChapterXIIwhile
om
6]
Section200,includingSection202,fallsinChapterXV.
7]
Inthecaseof DevarapalliLakshminarayanaReddy&
othersv.V.NarayanaReddy&others(AIR1976SC1672),
a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court held thus in
paragraphno.17asunder:
17. Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII,
underthecaption:"InformationtothePoliceand
their powers to investigate"; while Section 202
17
rt
C
ou
ig
h
Magistrateisinseisinofthecase.Thatisto
say in the case of a complaint regarding the
commission of a cognizable offence, the power
ba
y
om
18
rt
C
ou
ig
h
alreadyinstituteduponacomplaintbeforehim.
8]
ba
y
om
ChandJainv.StateofM.P.&another (2001)2SCC628,
asunder:
8.
19
rt
withthereportfiledbythepoliceasindicated
in Section 173 of the Code. The investigation
C
ou
thepoliceevenwithouttheorderofaMagistrate.
But that does not mean that when a Magistrate
orders an investigation under Section 156(3) it
would be a different kind of investigation. Such
investigation must also end up only with the
ig
h
ba
y
investigationifheproposestotakecognizanceof
the offence. Once he takes cognizance of the
offence he has to follow the procedure envisaged
om
20
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
rt
21
C
ou
9]
thataftermakingoftheorderu/s156(3)oftheCode,it
is the duty of the officerincharge of the Police
Station to register FIR regarding cognizable offence
disclosed by the complaint and then to proceed to make
ig
h
ba
y
om
22
rt
tobemadebyaPoliceOfficerorbysuchotherperson,
C
ou
isonlyforhelpingtheMagistratetodecidewhetheror
ig
h
oftheCode.TheFullBenchofthisCourtinthecaseof
Laxminarayan Vishwanath Arya v. State of Maharashtra &
ba
y
others(2007(5)Mh.L.J.,7)onthebasisofthedecision
in the case of M.C. Abraham & others v. State of
Maharashtra & others (2003 Bom.C.R. (Cri), 650 (SC)
om
statedthusinparagraphno.21asunder:
21. The provisions of Section 41 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, hereinafter
referredtoas"theCode",providesforarrest
by a Police Officer without an order from a
Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct
and different power under Section 44 of the
Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or
orderanypersontoarresttheoffender.Under
23
rt
C
ou
intheCourtoftheMagistratewhenanoffence
is committed in his presence. If the
Legislature has taken care of providing such
specific power under Section 44 of the Code,
thentherecouldbenoreasonforsuchapower
ig
h
ba
y
foranyoralloftheconditionsspecifiedin
that provision. Language of this provision
clearlysuggestedthat thePoliceOfficercan
om
24
rt
C
ou
arrestingofficershouldexercisehispoweror
discretion judiciously and should be free of
motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is
available to the accused in the cases where
the Magistrate directs investigation under
ig
h
Section156(3)oftheCodebytakingrecourse
to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code
ba
y
courseofinvestigationofacriminalcase,an
accused is not remediless and that would
om
furtherbuttresstheaboveviewtakenbyus.
TheFullBenchalsostatedthusinparagraphnos.12
and13asfollows:
12. Another aspect is the case would be
dependentontheconstructionoflanguageunder
Section 156(3) of the Code. Though this
provision does empower the Magistrate to order
aninvestigation, theLegislatureinitswisdom
hadextendednofurtherpowertotheMagistrate
to control or intercheck or stop or give
direction to the mode of investigation. The
25
rt
C
ou
ig
h
fordecadesnowonthisaspectofinvestigation
ofoffence.Theseprincipleshadpervadedeffect
onthemodeandcontrolofinvestigationbythe
investigating agency. These precepts have been
relegatedwithvariance.
Thelearnedcounselforthepartieshavecited
ba
y
10]
om
anotherreportedat2011Cri.L.J.,2278.Wehaveperused
thesaiddecisionandwethinkthatthesaiddecisionis
clearlydistinguishablesincetheFullBenchofAllahabad
HighCourtdidnotadverttothefactofterminationof
theproceedingsu/s156(3)oftheCodeafterpassingof
theorderbytheMagistratethereunderandthusthesaid
proceedingendingintofinalorder.
26
rt
C
ou
Sharmav.BipenKumarTiwariandStateofBiharv.J.A.C.
SaldanhaandOrs.,asstatedintheFullBenchjudgment.
Torepeat,aftermakingoforderu/s156(3)oftheCode,
ig
h
NothingremainspendingbeforetheMagistrateaftersuch
order is made. Thus, despite termination of the
ba
y
proceedingu/s156(3)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,
1973 and in the light of the principle 'ubi jus ibi
remedium',thepetitioners/applicantscannotbedenied
om
thestatutoryremedyofrevision.
12]
theSupremeCourtinDharmeshbhaiVasudevbhai&othersv.
StateofGujarat&others reportedat (2009)6SCC576.
We quote paragraph nos.6 to 8 from this decision as
under:
27
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
theotherisnotconducted.
7.
ofSection156oftheCode,aninvestigationmustbe
carried out. Only when the investigating officer
om
arrivesatafindingthattheallegedoffencehasnot
beencommittedbytheaccused,hemaysubmitafinal
form;Ontheotherhand,uponinvestigationifitis
found that a prima facie case has been madeout, a
chargesheetmustbefiled.
8. Interference in the exercise of the statutory
power of investigation by the Police by the
Magistratefarlessdirectionforwithdrawalofany
investigation which is sought to be carried out is
notenvisagedundertheCodeofCriminalProcedure.
The Magistrate's power in this regard is limited.
Evenotherwise,hedoesnothaveanyinherentpower.
28
rt
Ordinarily,hehasnopowertorecallhisorder.This
C
ou
"6.Withouttheuseoftheexpression"ifhe
thinks fit", the second alternative could
have been held to be independent of the
ig
h
ba
y
inwhichthefirstclauseisapplicable.
7.Itmayalsobefurthernoticedthat,even
insubsection(3)ofSection156,theonly
powergiventotheMagistrate,whocantake
om
cognizanceofanoffenceunderSection190,
is to order an investigation; there is no
mention of any power to stop an
investigation by the police. The scheme of
these sections, thus, clearly is that the
power of the police to investigate any
cognizable offence is uncontrolled by the
Magistrate, and it is only in cases where
the police decide not to investigate the
case that the Magistrate can intervene and
either direct an investigation, or, in the
alternative, himself proceed or depute a
Magistratesubordinatetohimtoproceedto
29
rt
C
ou
ig
h
containedintheaforesaidtwoChaptersviz.XIIandXV
andinthe light ofabovedecisionsthat theorderu/s
156(3) of the Code must be held to be not an
ba
y
Maharashtra&another(2004(1)Mh.L.J.,747),aDivision
BenchofthisCourtheldthusinparagraphnos.13,17and
19andextractedportionfromparagraphno.20asunder:
om
13.Allthathasbeendoneinthepresentcase
is an order under Section 156(3) of the Code
requiring investigation by a particular wing of
thepoliceoftheStateofMaharashtraispassed
and it is at this stage the petitioners have
moved this court for exercise of its extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
Factually an order under Section 156(3) of the
Code can be revised by a Sessions Judge or by
thiscourtunderSection397readwith401ofthe
Code. Even for that purpose therefore alternate
remedy is available to the petitioners. Apart
30
rt
fromthatmereorderdirectinginvestigationdoes
notcauseanyinjuryofirreparablenature,which
C
ou
requiresquashingofeventheinvestigation.All
that has been ordered is investigation into the
complaint.
17.
ig
h
thesedecisionsastheyareonthemeritsofthe
ba
y
19. TheSupremeCourthasobservedinthecase
of Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada,
(1997) 2 SCC 397 that the writ jurisdiction
should be sparingly used. We would like to note
om
verbatimwhattheSupremeCourthastosay:
"Itiswellsettledlegalpositionthatthe
High Court should sparingly and cautiously
exercisethepowerunderSection482ofthe
Code to prevent miscarriage of justice. In
StateofH.P.v.PrithiChandtwoofus(K.
RamaswamyandS.B.Majmudar,JJ.)composing
the Bench and in State of U.P. v. O.P.
Sharma a threeJudge Bench of this Court,
reviewedtheentirecaselawontheexercise
ofpowerbytheHighCourtunderSection482
of the Code to quash the complaint or the
chargesheetorthefirstinformationreport
andheldthattheHighCourtwouldbeloath
and circumspect to exercise its
extraordinarypowerunderSection482ofthe
31
ig
h
C
ou
rt
20.
circumspectively.
......
..
..
ba
y
Itwillbeseenthatwhatisimpugnedbeforeus
is the order passed under Section 156(3) of the
Code which directs investigation into the
complaint by a particular wing of the police.
om
Finallywequoteparagraphno.31asunder:
31. We have also noted above that several
efficacious alternate statutory remedies under
32
rt
theCriminalProcedureCodeareavailabletothe
petitionerstochallengetheorderunderSection
C
ou
ig
h
thereforeliabletobedismissed.
14] Insofarasthequestionframedbyusisconcerned,
ba
y
om
thesameisbindingonusaswerespectivelyagreewith
thesaidview,fortheabovereasonsthattheorderu/s
156(3)oftheCodenotbeinganinterlocutoryorder,but
being a final order in a proceeding u/s 156(3) of the
Code would certainly be revisable under the revisional
powers of the Sessions Court or the High Court. The
DivisionBenchinthecaseof B.S.Khatriv.Stateof
33
rt
Maharashtra&another(supra),however,clearlyheldthat
C
ou
theexerciseofextraordinaryjurisdictionunderArticle
ig
h
underArticle226oftheConstitutionistheoneofself
imposed rule. We, however, hold that the order u/s
ba
y
orderu/s156(3)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973,
is not an interlocutory order, but is a final order
terminating the proceeding u/s 156(3) of the Code and
om
15]
Thelearnedcounselforthepartieshavecited
severaldecisionsbeforethisCourt,butthenwedonot
thinkthatitisnecessarytorefertotheminthelight
ofthediscussionmadebyusabove.
34
Thelearnedcounselfortheappearingpartiesin
rt
16]
C
ou
allthesematterssubmittedthatthepowerofthisCourt
u/s482oftheCodeoughttobeexercisedbythisCourt
sincetheproceedingsimpugnedamounttoabuseofprocess
oftheCriminalCourt. Itisinthiscontext,wehave
heardthelearnedcounselforthepartiesandalsoseen
ig
h
thepleadingsintheseapplications/petitions.Wehave
carefully perused the pleadings and heard the learned
ba
y
requiredtobeexercisedonthefactsofthesecases.It
is a wellsettledlegalposition,aspointed outbyus
earlier, that the power u/s 482 of the Code is to be
om
exercisedsparingly.Thefactsandthedocumentsinthe
instant case in all these cases show several disputed
questionsandthefacetswhichrequiredueinvestigation
inthelightofthedocumentsandtheothermaterialon
record. Wehave cometo theconclusionthattheseare
notthecasesfitforexercisingtheinherentpoweru/s
482 of the Code and, therefore, we think that the
applicants / petitioners can very well address the
revisionalCourtonfactsaswellasonthequestionsof
35
rt
C
ou
ig
h
482oftheCodeorunderArticle226oftheConstitution
ofIndia.Intheresult,wemakethefollowingorder.
ba
y
ORDER
a]
om
36
rt
b]
C
ou
d]
ig
h
operateforanotherfourweeksfromtoday.
There shall be no order as to costs in these
ba
y
matters.
om
(INDIRAK.JAIN,J.)(A.B.CHAUDHARI,J.)
ndk/1563.doc