Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Savitrabai Sureshchandra Khatod, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, alleging offences under Sections 406, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against four persons. She prayed for an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) directing police investigation. The Magistrate, after considering the averments, concluded that it was not proper to direct investigation under Section 156(3) and instead decided to proceed by examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 CrPC. The petitioner challenged this order before the Sessions Court, which dismissed the revision, upholding the Magistrate's order. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor. The court examined the Magistrate's discretion under Section 156(3) CrPC and found that the Magistrate had correctly exercised his discretion in not ordering investigation and instead proceeding under Section 200. The court noted that the Magistrate's order was proper and the Sessions Judge had rightly dismissed the revision. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, finding no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC - Magistrate's Discretion - The Magistrate has discretion to either order investigation under Section 156(3) or proceed with inquiry under Section 200 CrPC - The order refusing to direct investigation and opting for inquiry under Section 200 is not illegal or improper - Held that the Magistrate's decision was correct and the revision was rightly dismissed (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and instead proceeding under Section 200 of the Code.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, upholding the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge.
Law Points
- Magistrate's discretion under Section 156(3) CrPC
- distinction between investigation and inquiry
- revisional jurisdiction of Sessions Court
- constitutional remedy under Article 227
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 2
Criminal Writ Petition No. 733 of 2013
Mr. Kalani Pravin N. for Petitioner, Mr. K.S. Patil for Respondent
Smt. Savitrabai Sureshchandra Khatod
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of the Magistrate refusing to direct investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and the dismissal of revision by the Sessions Court.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, and a direction to the police to register a crime and commence investigation.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the Magistrate's decision to proceed under Section 200 CrPC instead of ordering investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and decided to proceed under Section 200 CrPC. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision against that order.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and instead proceeding under Section 200 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Magistrate should have ordered investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. The respondent State supported the Magistrate's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) CrPC to either order investigation or proceed with inquiry under Section 200 CrPC. The Magistrate's decision to proceed under Section 200 was proper and not illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Magistrate, after considering the avernments in the complaint, came to the conclusion that it was not proper to direct investigation into the matter as contemplated under Section 156(3) of the Code but, it would be sufficient, if the complaint is proceeded further by examining the complainant on oath as contemplated under Section 200 of the Code.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, praying for an order under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Magistrate refused and decided to proceed under Section 200 CrPC. The petitioner challenged this order before the Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed the revision. The petitioner then filed the present criminal writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3), 200
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 406, 409, 420
