Allowed

Shaik Jareena, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Jul 2022CRLP/5033/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition, the High Court set aside and quashed a Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing police investigation for lack of reasons and absence of supporting affidavit, remanding it for a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned memo/proceedings of the learned Magistrate are quashed and the matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate for passing a reasoned order.

Shaik Jareena, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATHI

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5033 OF 2022

¶4

Shaik Jareena … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor and another. … Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.G.Ramachandra Reddy Counsel for the 1^st respondent : The Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the 2^nd respondent : --

¶8

ORDER :

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent. Notice to the 2^nd respondent is deemed not necessary as the matter is being disposed of without going into the merits of the case and in view of the settled legal position.

¶10

The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in C.F.R.No.456 of 2021 in an unnumbered Calendar Case on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoti. The 2^nd respondent herein filed a private compliant vide C.F.R.No.456 of 2021 against the petitioner and others. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoti, issued a Memo dated 23.02.2021 directing the police to investigate into the complaint and file a report under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code(for short ‘Cr.P.C’). Aggrieved by the same, the instant quash petition has been filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the issuance of Memo dated 23.02.2021 by the learned Magistrate is not

¶12

¶13

sustainable as no reasons were assigned while directing the police to investigate into the matter. He submits that the learned Magistrate is required to look into the material on record and refer to the factors which weighed for ordering investigation and in the present case, the learned Magistrate issued directions in a routine manner and the same is contrary to law. The learned counsel in support of his contentions, places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others¹ and the decisions reported in M.Hanumantha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another(High Court)² and Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another³ . He submits that in the light of the said decisions, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and no interference is called for by this Court.

¶15

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record. In M.Hanumantha Rao’s case , a learned Judge of this Court while referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanaka Srivastava’s case , inter alia, held that the factors that weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order, although a detailed explanation or detailed reasons are not warranted. The learned Judge, in the facts of the said case, further observed to the effect that the affidavit/s, which

¶16

1 (2015) 6 SCC 287

¶17

2 2019(2) ALD (Crl.) 923 (AP)

¶18

3 2020(1) ALD (Crl.) 499 (AP)

¶19

¶20

are required to be accompanied with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava’s case , should contain a statement on oath atleast briefly of all the relevant particulars and events/offences which are mentioned in the complaint that is filed and the same would enable the learned Magistrate to verify truth and also veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. While observing that the affidavit filed in the case before him is very brief, the learned Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case, was pleased to quash the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶21

Another learned Judge in Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy ’ s case referred to supra, while referring to an earlier decision reported in Anne Srinivasa Rao v. State of Telangana and another, 2017(2) ALD (Crl.) 139, reiterated that reference of a private complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to the police, without clearly mentioning in the order, the facts and circumstances that weighed for referring a complaint to the police which is sine qua non as a curable defect.

¶22

A reading of the Official Memo dated 22.03.2021, against the background of the above legal position, would go to show that the same is unsustainable, since no reasons were assigned by the learned Magistrate, except issuing direction to police to investigate and file a report. Therefore, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Order of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside.

¶23

¶24

In Priyanka Srivastava’s case , the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the requirement of affidavits in support of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as the same would have a deterrent effect with regard to casual invocation of jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as filing of false affidavits by the applicants would make them liable for prosecution, in accordance with Law.

¶25

In the present case, no such affidavits appears to have been filed before the learned Magistrate which are required to be taken into consideration before issuing directions to the police to investigate into the matter.

¶26

In the light of the above legal and factual position, the impugned memo/proceedings of the learned Magistrate are not sustainable. Therefore, the same are quashed and the matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate for passing a reasoned order duly reflecting the factors for ordering investigation after obtaining affidavits in support of the complaint, if the same are not filed along with the complaint.

¶27