Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the impugned order of Sessions Judge, Outer District, Delhi pronounced in revision petition filed against the order of Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’). Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.*, opined that the directions for investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC could not be given by the Magistrate mechanically and such a direction could be given only on application of mind by the Magistrate. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no miscarriage of justice or illegal approach adopted which needed correction by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.
Background
The petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before MM to register FIR and to investigate a case as no action was taken on his complaints that he had given to the SHO against Respondents 1 to 3 and further the said complaint had been given to the DCP. The petitioner stated that Respondents 1 to 3 proposed him to start core binding business plan with an investment of Rs. 3.5 Lakhs and thus the petitioner invested an amount of Rs. 2,20,200 in instalments and allegedly got cheated by the respondents as thereafter Respondent 1 discontinued the contact with the petitioner and refused to give him the machine. Therefore, as no action was taken on the petitioner’s complaint, he moved an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the MM and the same was dismissed. The petitioner challenged MM’s order by filing a revision petition before the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge upheld MM’s order and dismissed the revision petition. Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of CrPC and Article 226 of Constitution challenging previous orders.
Analysis and decision
The issue before the Court was “whether the petitioner having already availed the remedy of revision, should be allowed to take recourse under Section 482 of CrPC as a substitute for virtually initiating a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which was clearly barred under Section 397(3) of the CrPC?”.
While relying on Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522 where the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241 regarding the applicability of Section 482 of CrPC, and observed that the power of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC was wide but needed to be exercised sparingly and cautiously particularly in the case where revisional jurisdiction had already been invoked under Section 397 of CrPC.
The Court noted that the MM concluded that there was no need to invoke Section 156(3) CrPC for issuing directions to the SHO to register an FIR and the said conclusion was affirmed by the Court of Sessions.
The Court also relied on Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 448 and Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439 and observed that under Section 156(3) of CrPC, Magistrate was not bound to direct investigation by police and such direction could be given only on application of mind. It was also observed that each case must be viewed depending upon the facts and circumstances involved. The directions for investigation could not be granted even if all allegations made in the complaint constituted a cognizable offence and in cases where the complainant could prove the facts alleged in the complaint without assistance of police, then Magistrate might proceed under Section 200 of CrPC. The Court opined that in the instant case, the facts were within the petitioner’s knowledge, which could be adduced during the inquiry conducted by the MM under Section 200 of CrPC. Hence, Investigation was not required.
The Court thus held that there was no special case to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution as there was no miscarriage of justice or illegality in the approach adopted by the MM or the Court of Sessions nor any such thing had been pointed out by the petitioner. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition as no palpable absurdity or perversity was found in impugned order which needed any correction by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.
[Anjuri Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7570, decided on 29-11-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Jai Subhash Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel with Priyam Aggarwal, Shivesh Kaushik and Abhinav Kumar Arya, Advocates
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
