9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 686 - HC - Indian LawsDismissal of application filed by the petitioner under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - whether the petitioner having already availed the remedy of revision should be allowed to take recourse to Section 482 of the CrPC as a substitute for initiating a second revisional challenge which is clearly barred under Section 397 (3) of the CrPC? - HELD THAT - While it is settled law that a second revision cannot be filed in terms of the bar under Section 397 of the CrPC the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC has a wide ambit and can be exercised in the interest of justice. It is the case of the petitioner that the complaint discloses commission of cognizanble offences and it was thus incumbent on the police officers as well as the Courts below to direct registration of FIR. Reliance has been placed on the case of case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. 2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT . The Hon ble Apex Court in the said case has categorically held that FIR ought to be registered by the police when the allegations clearly disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The Magistrate after application of mind can also decide to take cognizance and proceed under Section 202 of the CrPC instead of issuing directions under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. In the present case the learned Trial Court has straightaway taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) of the CrPC instead of ordering an investigation under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. - It is well settled that for the same set of facts parallel proceedings seeking both civil and criminal remedies can continue simultaneously. Thus merely because a civil remedy is available to a litigant the same cannot preclude the continuance of criminal proceedings. For exercising powers under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC and directing the registration of an FIR the Magistrate needs to ensure that a cognizable offence is disclosed from the allegations mentioned in the application and the essential elements of the alleged offences thereof are prima facie satisfied. Apart from the same the Magistrate also needs to satisfy himself as to whether intervention of police is required and if the complainant will not be in a position to adduce the relevant evidence without assistance of police. It is apparent that the petitioner is merely seeking the assistance of the police to conduct a fishing and roving inquiry. As has been noted by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court all pertinent facts and evidence are within the petitioner s knowledge and reach and it can present such information during the inquiry conducted by the learned Trial Court pursuant to Section 200 of the CrPC. Given these factors the need for police involvement in evidence collection appears to be minimal as the complainant is well-equipped to facilitate the presentation of evidence on its own behalf - when the allegations are not particularly severe and the complainant already possessed sufficient evidence to support their claims there may be no necessity to pass orders under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. Conclusion - In the instant case this court is of the opinion that no exceptional circumstances have been presented to warrant the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. There is no indication of any miscarriage of justice or legal irregularity in the proceedings undertaken by the two lower courts and the petitioner has not been able to point out any such deficiencies. There are no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the same cannot be faulted with.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered was whether the petitioner, having already availed the remedy of revision, could take recourse to Section 482 of the CrPC as a substitute for initiating a second revisional challenge, which is barred under Section 397(3) of the CrPC. Additionally, the Court examined whether the allegations made by the petitioner disclosed the commission of cognizable offences warranting the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involved Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR and initiate investigations, and Section 482 of the CrPC, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. The Court referred to precedents such as Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, which discuss the mandatory nature of FIR registration when allegations disclose cognizable offences and the wide ambit of the High Court's inherent powers. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that while the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC is broad, it should be exercised sparingly and cautiously, particularly when the Sessions Judge has exercised revisional power. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate has the discretion to direct the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, but this power should not be exercised mechanically and must be based on a careful assessment of the necessity for police intervention. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner alleged that the respondents conspired to cheat it by inducing it to enter into agreements based on false assurances. The petitioner claimed that the respondents misrepresented ownership of land and failed to obtain necessary permissions, resulting in financial loss. The Court found that the dispute arose primarily from contractual agreements, and some steps were taken by the respondents towards fulfilling their commitments. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles from relevant precedents, noting that the Magistrate had the option to proceed under Section 200 of the CrPC instead of ordering an investigation under Section 156(3). The Court observed that the petitioner possessed sufficient evidence to support its claims and that the involvement of the police was not necessary for evidence collection. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences and that police assistance was necessary for evidence collection. The respondents contended that the dispute was civil in nature, arising from business transactions, and that the petitioner failed to fulfill its contractual obligations. The Court found that the civil nature of the dispute was evident and that the petitioner could present its evidence during the inquiry under Section 200 of the CrPC. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the dispute primarily involved civil issues arising from contractual agreements and that the petitioner had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, finding no miscarriage of justice or legal irregularity. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court reiterated that the Magistrate's power to direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) of the CrPC should be exercised judiciously and not mechanically. The Court emphasized that the availability of civil remedies does not preclude criminal proceedings if there is a prima facie case of dishonest inducement and intention to cheat. However, in this case, the Court found that the civil nature of the dispute was predominant, and the petitioner had not established the necessity for police intervention. The Court also highlighted that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of miscarriage of justice or legal irregularity. The Court found no such circumstances in the present case and dismissed the petition, upholding the decisions of the lower courts.
|
