AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U.D. Salvi, J.—Heard. Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by mutual consent of the parties. These are the Criminal Writ Petitions for quashing the judgment and order dated 29/11/2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision No. 134/2008. These Petitions are preferred by the persons indicted as the accused No. 1 & accused No. 8 and by Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., though its Chairman, and Managing Director and other Directors indicted as the accused Nos. 4 to 6 respectively in the complaint-R.C.C. No. 615/2007 lodged by the respondent No. 1-Sudhakar M. Talapurkar.
The respondent No. 1 lodged a private complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad against the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 546/2009 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 547/2009, particularly the Directors and the Chairman of Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., and others in respect of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 415, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 12/4/2007. The respondent No. 1 alleged that on his retirement from the Services of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board as Chief Engineer, he had received lump-sum amount which he intended to invest. He further alleged that he was having number of shares, and he had invested some of the amount for purchase of debentures of Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. According to him, one Satish Bhagat, Branch incharge, Insight Share Brokers Private Ltd., (I.S.B. Private Ltd.) Aurangabad approached him with a request to invest his funds in on line share business and further represented that I.S.B. Private Ltd., would provide expert services in that regard and such investments could fetch him hand-some benefits without he having any botheration. In response to these representations, the complainant revealed, he opened an account with I.S.B. Private Ltd. Thereafter, the complainant alleged, Satish Bhagat and associates asked him to pledge his shares to Sitaram Transport Finance Company Ltd., (S.T.F.C. Private Ltd.) sister concern of I.S.B. Private Ltd., and further represented to him that such pledging of shares could help him to get loan against the value of the shares pledged with which more business getting more benefits from transactions could be done. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1/ complainant alleged, shares of Godrej Consumer, Larsen and Tubro ( L & T), IDBI, Andhara Bank, and Arvind Mill as enumerated in the complaint were pledged. According to the complainant, his signature were obtained by I.S.B. Private Ltd., and S.T.F.C. Private Ltd. on blank documents viz agreement cum pledge, loan against shares (request letter), letter of continuity, promissory note, letter to ISB, request letter to ISB, authorization letter to sell shares through borrowers having account with ISB. Later on it was revealed to the complainant by his Charted Accountant, in or about September 2005, that all the shares pledged were sold out without providing him details of the pledge account by S.T.F.C. Private Ltd., and I.S.B. Private Ltd. According to the respondent No. 1/ complainant, on 23/10/2003 he had informed S.T.F.C. Private Ltd. to close down the loan account, and despite such instructions the loan account was operated unauthorizedly. The respondent No. 1/ complainant alleged that the accused persons named in the complaint conspired together to induce the complainant to pledge his shares and thereupon did so and thereafter, keeping him in dark unauthorizedly sold the said shares to gain brokerage and interest, and thereby he suffered loss of the shares. All this, the respondent No. 1/ complainant pleaded, required thorough investigation.
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad entertained the said complaint and passed the following order dated 28/2/2008.
Heard Advocate for complainant.
Perused documents on record.
Dispute between accused and complainant seems to be of Civil nature that of breach of agreement and cheating by accused. From facts put forth I am not satisfied to issue directions to Police to investigate the matter. Hence, complainant to adduce evidence in support of this contention after verification of complaint.
Case be fixed for verification.
Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, the respondent No. 1/ complainant preferred Criminal Revision No. 134/2008, in the Court of Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. Only State was made party to the said Criminal Revision, moved u/s 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for Short "Code"). After hearing the parties learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad quashed the order dated 20/2/2008 passed in R.C.S. No. 615/2007 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, and directed investigation in the offences alleged in the complainant vide Section 156(3) of the Code.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that order directing investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code could not have been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, disregarding the provisions of Section 401 (2) which were applicable to the proceeding by way of revision before him by virtue of Section 399(2) of the Code. According to them, passing of an order u/s 156(3) of the Code makes it obligatory on the police machinery to register F.I.R. treating the complaint made by the respondent No. 1 as the F.I.R. against the accused named therein, and such registration of crime brings in its wake the adverse effects including one of arrest. This being the prejudice caused to the accused persons, they urged, it was incumbent upon learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad to extend opportunity to the petitioners of being heard before passing of such order as per Section 401(2) of the Code. Learned Advocates relied on the following Judgments delivered by the Hon''ble Apex Court;
i] Dilwar Singh Vs. State of Delhi; 2007 Cri.L.J. 4709(1)
ii] Madhu Bala Vs. Sureshkumar; 1997 AIR (SC) 3104
to advance an argument that as a consequence of passing of the order u/s 156 (3) of the Code, the Police remained under obligation to register a case in terms of the complaint lodged by the complainant. Learned Advocates for the petitioner urged that in view of such legal position the impugned order be set aside with directions to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, to give hearing to the petitioners in Criminal Revision Application No. 134/2008, and to pass such orders as are necessary in accordance with law.
Learned Advocate Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar holding for Shri N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for respondent No. 1/ complainant, submitted that the complaint was in embryonic stage, when the impugned orders came to be passed, and as such, the persons against whom the accusations were levelled had no locus-standi to appear in the proceedings unless the process against them was issued. She placed reliance on following judgments :
1] Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose & another; 1963 AIR 1430.
2] Pavankumar Bhurmalji Ostwal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & another; 2008 (6) Mah. L.J. 691.
3] M. Thulasidass Vs. K. Govindaraju; 1995 Cri.L.J. 1660.
4] Shri Ramchandra Mission Through....... Vs. State of U.P. Unreported Judgment of Allahabad High Court.
She further submitted that the registration of the case as a consequence of directions u/s 156 of the Code, constitutes no prejudice to the accused, and as such, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad is perfectly legal not warranting any interference.
Section 399 of the Code reads as under :
Sessions Judge'' s powers of revision.
(1)In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 401.
(2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3),
(4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge.
(3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of an person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by Way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court.
It can very well be seen from reading of sub section (2) of Section 399 of the Code that the provisions of Sub Section (2) of Section 401 of the Code apply to the revision proceedings, so far as may be, before the Sessions Judge. Sub Section 2 of Section 401 of the Code reads as under.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
It will therefore, have to be examined whether learned Sessions Judge, while directing investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code ought to have given opportunity of being heard to the petitioners; and for that purpose it needs to be ascertained whether prejudice was caused to the accused herein on issuance of directions to investigate in the present case.
In Dilawar Singh''s Case (supra) as well as Madhu Bala''s case (supra) the Hon''ble Apex Court commented on the consequences of directions issued u/s 156(3) of the Code. Undoubtedly, Section 156 (1) empowers police to investigate into a cognizable case, and the police are duty bound to formally register the case and then investigate the same. It can also be seen from the reading of Madhu Bala''s Case (supra), that as soon as an order u/s 156 (3) is passed, the complaint lodged transforms itself to a report given in writing within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code, which is known as the First Information Report (FIR).
Chandra Deo Singh''s case (supra) makes it abundantly clear that the persons against whom accusations are made in a private complaint do not come in picture at all till the process is issued, and as such they have no locus-standi in the criminal proceedings till then.
In Ramchandra Mission''s Case (supra) an application u/s 156 (3) was rejected by the Magistrate against which revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge gave finding in the view of the provisions of Section 401(2) read with 399 (2) of the Code that it was necessary to hear the persons against whom the F.I.R. was sought to be registered because no order could be passed against the said persons without giving them opportunity of being heard as contemplated in Section 401(2) read with Section 399 (2) of the Code. The Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code, observed that the right of a person of being heard before an order is passed against him is not an absolute right in law as in life there are no absolutes; and the accused cannot raise the banner of breach of the right of being heard at certain stages in legal proceedings (meaning thereby at the stage before issuance of process); and proceeded to set aside the order passed by learned Sessions Judge.
In M. Thulasidass''s Case (supra), the accused named in the complaint filed petition seeking permission to defend the revision pending before the Sessions Judge against the order of dismissal of the private complaint u/s 203 of the Code passed before issuance of process on the ground that he being the accused in the complaint has got right to defend the revision and, therefore, he must be given an opportunity to submit his arguments. Learned Sessions Judge rejected his request, and it became subject matter of the case before the Single Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Revision No. 152/1994. Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court was of the view, that the accused person need not be heard because he has not been summoned to the Court. Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court was of the opinion that even if the revision before learned Sessions Judge was allowed, opportunity would be given to the accused petitioner to answer the charges in the regular proceedings which were to be proceeded according to law.
From the judgments cited on behalf of the respondent No. 1/ complainant, one can easily sense a premise that one who has no right of audience before the Magistrate in the proceedings, has no right of audience before the Revisional Court in the proceedings arising out of such proceedings before the Magistrate. However, the real issue is whether any prejudice would be caused by the order passed for registration of a case and investigation following thereto.
If one examines the scheme of law under Chapter XII of the Code, it can be seen that on receipt of information, either oral or written, relating to the commission of cognizable offence, the officer in charge of a police station shall enter the substance thereof in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf as per Section 154 of the Code; u/s 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the Police Officer has power to investigate any cognizable case. Sub clause 3 of Section 156 of the Code gives discretion to the Magistrate empowered u/s 190 to order such investigation. Section 157 of the Code which is quoted here-in-below deals with the procedure of investigation :
Procedure for investigation.
(1)If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered u/s 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender; Provided that
(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. Provided further that
[Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality.]
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.
Thus, section 157 of the Code reveals that it is for the Officer In-charge of the Police Station to employ his discretion and act accordingly, as provided in the said Section. Necessarily, therefore, it can not be inferred from the order directing investigation u/s 156(3) of the Court that such orders cause prejudice to the persons against whom F.I.R. is registered. In some measure, this view is subscribed to by the Single Bench of this Court in Pavankumar''s case (supra), wherein it was observed, while dismissing the petition for quashing the order u/s 156 (3) of the Code, that the challenge to orders which are passed behind back of the applicants and which do not directly affect their liberty cannot be challenged by them. Directions given to investigate into the offences alleged in the complaint as per Section 156(3) of the Code do not cause prejudice to the applicants/ accused in as much as such directions do not directly affect their liberty. After all investigation is a step in search of truth and as such causes prejudice to none but serves all in the process of dispensing justice. Impugned order passed in the aforesaid Criminal Revision without extending opportunity of being heard to the accused is, therefore, not beset with any illegality or perversity requiring interference in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Criminal Writ Petitions are therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Learned Advocate Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar request for continuation of the interim relief granted in this petition for further period of four weeks, in order to enable them to assail this order. Interim relief to continue for next four weeks.