Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, filed a complaint through its authorized representative before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court at Borivali, against respondent no.2 and unknown persons, alleging offences under Sections 408, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint sought an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for police investigation. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the complaint and documents, found a prima facie case and directed police investigation on 1 March 2011. Pursuant to this order, an FIR was registered at Aarey Police Station, and respondent no.2 obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court. Respondent no.2 then filed a revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi, who on 11 November 2011 set aside the Magistrate's order, holding that the complaint did not satisfy the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(d) CrPC and dismissed it. The petitioner challenged this revisional order before the High Court. The High Court examined the nature of the Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) CrPC, which is pre-cognizance and can be exercised on any information disclosing a cognizable offence. The Court held that the petitioner's filing clearly constituted a 'complaint' under Section 2(d) CrPC as it contained allegations of offences made with a view to taking action under the Code. The revisional court erred in dismissing the complaint on that ground. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Sessions Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order dated 1 March 2011, directing the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3) - Power to order police investigation - The Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) CrPC is exercisable before taking cognizance and is not dependent on the complaint satisfying the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(d) CrPC in a strict sense; the Magistrate can act on any information that discloses a cognizable offence. (Paras 6-8) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 2(d) - Definition of 'complaint' - Any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person has committed an offence, constitutes a complaint; the petitioner's filing clearly fell within this definition. (Paras 9-10) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - The revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the complaint as not being a complaint, when the Magistrate had correctly exercised his power under Section 156(3) CrPC; the order of the Sessions Court was set aside. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) CrPC and dismissing the complaint as not being a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Code.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 11 November 2011, and restored the order of the Magistrate dated 1 March 2011. The Magistrate was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) CrPC is pre-cognizance
- complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC includes allegations made with a view to taking action under the Code
- revision court cannot dismiss complaint as not being a complaint when it satisfies Section 2(d) CrPC
