2010 (7) TMI 1144 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction u/s 156(3) CrPC - the facts of the case, that suit for recovery of money filed by SEPCO is pending in the civil court and counter claim of the appellants is also pending in the same suit, proper course would be to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute. However, according to him, instead of pursuing the said legal and contractual remedy, the respondent- SEPCO rushed to the Magistrate and the Magistrate committed an error in invoking jurisdiction u/s 156(3) of the Code by directing the Investigation Officer concerned to submit a charge sheet in the Court. He also submitted that inasmuch as the appellants, as on date, have repaid ₹ 10 crores as against the claim of ₹ 21 crores and made a counter claim for ₹ 10 crores, the criminal proceedings could be deferred till appropriate decision being taken in the civil proceedings. On the other hand, after taking us through the salient features in the complaint, specific allegations with reference to the criminality of the respondents, various terms of the contract and the conduct of the appellant in diverting the entire amount received for a different purpose and in view of the Sections 156(3) and 190 of the Code, the Magistrate is well within his powers to pass the impugned order and the same has been rightly considered and approved by the learned single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court contended that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence this appeal. HELD THAT - In the instant case the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the complaint for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding; but only for ordering an investigation u/s 156(3). He did not bring into motion the machinery of Chapter XV. He did not examine the complainant or his witnesses u/s 200 CrPC, which is the first step in the procedure prescribed under that chapter. The question of taking the next step of that procedure envisaged in Section 202 did not arise. Instead of taking cognizance of the offence, he has, in the exercise of his discretion, sent the complaint for investigation by police u/s 156. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that while directing the police to register FIR, the Magistrate has committed any illegality. As a matter of fact, even after receipt of such report, the Magistrate u/s 190(1)(b) may or may not take cognizance of offence. In other words, he is not bound to take cognizance upon submission of the police report by the Investigating Officer, hence, by directing the police to file chargesheet or final report and to hold investigation with a particular result cannot be construed that the Magistrate has exceeded his power as provided in Sub-section 3 of Section 156. Neither the chargesheet nor the final report has been defined in the Code. The chargesheet or final report whatever may be the nomenclature, it only means a report u/s 173 of the Code which has to be filed by the police officer on completion of his investigation. In view of our discussion, in the case on hand, we are satisfied that the Magistrate in passing the impugned order has not committed any illegality leading to manifest injustice warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are also satisfied that learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench rightly refused to interfere with the limited order passed by the Magistrate. We also hold that challenge at this stage by the appellants is pre-mature and the High Court rightly rejected their request. we are in agreement with the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh. As on date there is no impediment for the police to investigate and submit report as directed in the order dated 04.07.2009 by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Interim orders in respect of all the proceedings including the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh are vacated and both parties are at liberty to pursue their remedy in the pending proceedings in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal arising out of SLP of Srinivas Gundluri and Ors. (SSVG) is dismissed and the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) filed by SEPCO is allowed to the extent indicated.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
2. Validity of the interim order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
3. The relationship between civil and criminal proceedings in the context of the dispute.
4. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety in handling the complaint and investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Magistrate's Order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC:

The appellants challenged the Magistrate's order directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Magistrate had perused the complaint and found that it disclosed cognizable offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Magistrate did not examine the complainant or witnesses under Section 200 of the CrPC, which is the first step in the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV. Instead, the Magistrate directed the police to investigate the matter. The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate's order, stating that the Magistrate did not commit any illegality in directing the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offense but merely directed an investigation, which is permissible under the law.

2. Validity of the Interim Order Passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh:

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had stayed the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Hyderabad, which rejected the application for extension of transit bail and issued a non-bailable warrant against the appellant. The Supreme Court vacated the interim order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, allowing the police to proceed with the investigation as directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba. The Court noted that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had committed an error in granting the stay.

3. Relationship Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings:

The appellants argued that since a civil suit for recovery of money and a counterclaim were pending, the criminal proceedings should be deferred. However, the Supreme Court held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not bar criminal proceedings if the complaint discloses cognizable offenses. The Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint disclosed cognizable offenses, and the Magistrate was justified in directing the police to investigate the matter. The Court further stated that the outcome of the civil proceedings would not affect the criminal investigation.

4. Jurisdiction and Procedural Propriety in Handling the Complaint and Investigation:

The Supreme Court examined the jurisdiction and procedural propriety of the Magistrate's order. The Court referred to various provisions of the CrPC, including Sections 156(3), 200, and 202, and noted that the Magistrate had the discretion to direct an investigation under Section 156(3) without taking cognizance of the offense. The Court also referred to earlier judgments, including Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Ors. v. Narayana Reddy and Ors. and Tula Ram and Ors. v. Kishore Singh, to support its conclusion that the Magistrate's order was within the scope of the law.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants (SSVG) and allowed the appeal filed by SEPCO to the extent indicated. The Court upheld the Magistrate's order directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and vacated the interim order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Court emphasized that the criminal proceedings could continue despite the pendency of civil proceedings and that the Magistrate had acted within his jurisdiction and procedural propriety in handling the complaint and investigation.