Point that falls for consideration is:
In the matter of CRIMINAL PETITION No.5562 of 2019 the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a quashing petition filed by an accused on the ground that the Magistrate was right in forwarding the complaint to the police as it disclosed various cognizable offences and the police can thoroughly investigate the matter.
“Whether facts on record indicate an innocent being
put to criminal prosecution in violation of any procedural
or substantive rights requiring this court to exercise powers
inhere in it in terms of Section 482 of the CrPC?”
In the light of the above facts available on record, the contentions raised in this petition by the accused require consideration:
- 3rd respondent in this petition is a kind of a man who always alone wants to control and rule the people in the village and he is jealous of this criminal petitioner and he and at his behest others resorted to this mudslinging against the petitioner to tarnish his image.
- A written complaint before a learned Magistrate could be forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police for investigation in terms of Section 156(3) CrPC. However, the written complaint shall be accompanied by a sworn affidavit and it must indicate that earlier to filing that complaint before the court, the complainants attempted to have FIR registered in terms of Section 154 CrPC and the police failing to register such an FIR they should put up their grievance to the Superintendent of Police in terms of Section 154(3) CrPC. In the case at hand, the written complaint failed to disclose these two aspects.
- An order under Section 156(3) CrPC shall contain brief reasons which prompted the learned Magistrate in forwarding the complaint to the police. In the case at hand, the order of the learned 6 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.5562 of 2019 Magistrate is bereft of reasons. It is in that context the complaint and order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC failed to comply with the legal mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Priyanka Srivastava V. State of Uttar Pradesh1. • Referring to the factual allegations.
The complaint at hand is a prayer to the Magistrate himself to inquire into and proceed further. In such an event, two options were available for the learned Magistrate. He may embark upon enquiry in terms of Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC. The other alternative available for him was to forward the complaint to the police for investigation. In the case at hand, as the complaint alleged various cognizable offences otherwise of it would require the Magistrate to look into voluminous documents and records of the endowments department and records maintained by the temple trustee. It seems he thought it fit that the best suited agency in such circumstances is the police and therefore exercised power under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Therefore there was no obligation on part of the complainants first to go to police and then to go to the superiors in the police department and only then go to the court. The fact that there was no misuse of criminal justice machinery is very clear since that complaint was thoroughly investigated into by the state police and they filed the charge sheet also. It is at that belated stage, this accused is not entitled to raise a question as to the efficacy of the complaint before the learned trial court. Even otherwise, the order of the Magistrate in forwarding a complaint to the police under section 156(3) CrPC does not really require any more elaboration except a direction is clear from the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Supreme Bhiwandi wada’s case mentioned earlier. It is in these circumstances, this court finds no merit in the petition and there is no merit in the legal submissions argued on behalf of the petitioner
