9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 830 - SC - Indian LawsRegistration of FIR - locus standi of the complainant - Mr. M. Subramaniam and Mr. R.V. Prasanna Venkatesan who were not even made parties to the criminal petition, have filed present petition - HELD THAT - While it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellants on the question of locus standi, we are inclined to accept the contention that the High Court could not have directed the registration of an FIR with a direction to the police to investigate and file the final report in view of the judgment of this Court in SAKIRI VASU VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 2007 (12) TMI 485 - SUPREME COURT . The direction of the High Court for registration of the FIR and investigation into the matter by the police, is set aside. At the same time, our order would not be an impediment in the way of the first respondent filing documents and papers with the police pursuant to the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and the police on being satisfied that a criminal offence is made out would have liberty to register an FIR - appeal allowed in part.
Issues involved:
1. Validity of the direction to register an FIR and conduct an investigation by the High Court. 2. Locus standi of the first respondent to file a criminal complaint. 3. Applicability of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in directing registration of an FIR. Issue 1: Validity of the direction to register an FIR and conduct an investigation by the High Court: The Supreme Court examined the impugned order passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directing the Inspector of Police to register an FIR based on a complaint. Despite a stay order, an FIR was registered against the appellants and others. The Court noted that the High Court's direction for registration of an FIR with an investigation was in conflict with the principles outlined in the Sakiri Vasu case. The Court emphasized the procedure under Section 156(3) CrPC, which allows an aggrieved person to approach the Magistrate for directing the registration of an FIR and ensuring a proper investigation. The Court set aside the High Court's direction, emphasizing that a civil dispute should not be transformed into a criminal offense. Issue 2: Locus standi of the first respondent to file a criminal complaint: The appellants argued that the first respondent lacked the standing to file a criminal complaint and alleged that the complaint was driven by vengeance due to a pending civil dispute. The Court did not accept the contention regarding locus standi but acknowledged the possibility of the complaint being filed with malicious intent. However, the Court's focus was on the procedural correctness of directing the registration of an FIR by the High Court. Issue 3: Applicability of Section 156(3) of the CrPC in directing registration of an FIR: The Court extensively discussed the provisions of Section 156(3) of the CrPC, emphasizing the power of the Magistrate to order investigation, including directing the registration of an FIR and ensuring a proper investigation. Citing previous judgments, the Court reiterated that the Magistrate plays a crucial role in overseeing the investigation process and can intervene if the police fail to conduct a proper investigation. The Court highlighted that the power under Section 156(3) is broad and includes incidental powers necessary for ensuring a thorough investigation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's direction for FIR registration and investigation while emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed procedures under the CrPC. The Court clarified that the decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the complaint but underscored the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offenses.
|
