The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and examination under Section 200 CrPC. The Court held there was no material to sustain the allegations as the complaint lacked specific pleadings regarding land disputes and encroachment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-AUG:18982
68-cwp-1219-2018.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1219 OF 2018 WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1273 of 2019
Sakharam s/o Dagduji Jadhav Age : 80 years, Occ : Pensioner & Agriculture R/o Plot No.9, Deogiri Housing Society, Khokadpura, Aurangabad. ..Petitioner
VERSUS
68-cwp-1219-2018.odt
(2)
R/o: Osmanpura, Near Gurudwara, Aurangabad. Mob No. 9850140061. ..Respondents
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Joshi Rahul G. APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.B. Narwade Advocate for Respondent No.2, 3 & 5 : Mr. S.P. Shah Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. V.S. Sakhare h/f Mr. S.A. Ambad
... CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.
DATED : AUGUST 05, 2024
ORDER :-
the prayers were twofold. Firstly, the prayer was for directing the police to register the crime under Section 156(3), and in alternative, the application be treated complaint. If the Court was of the opinion that the petitioner has no case to direct the police under Section
68-cwp-1219-2018.odt
(3)
156(3), the Trial Court should have passed the order under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. None of the Courts below granted him an opportunity to prove the allegations. The matter was serious. The JCB was taken into the field forcefully. The plants were uprooted. The Tahsildar had drawn the panchnama of the removal/cutting of the plants and trees. The tone of his argument was that once the complaint is filed, the Court shall pass an order under Section 156(3) or 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. To bolster his argument, he relied on the case of Pranati Das Vs. State of West Bengal, 2020 SCC Online Cal 132. In that case, the complaint was rejected on the report submitted by the officer in charge of the police station. It has been further observed that our Apex Court has also observed in the decision cited by Learned Magistrate (Priyanka Shrivastava Vs. State of U.P) that in an appropriate case, the Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also verify the veracity of the allegations contained in the petition of complaint. This judgment is self-speaking. The Magistrate must apply the mind based upon the veracity of the allegation. In other words, it may be stated that barely lodging the complaint is not sufficient. The allegations should inspire confidence that the cognizable offence has happened.
68-cwp-1219-2018.odt (4)
of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a mechanical process. There should be sufficient material to form an opinion that it is a matter in which action is required to be taken to make justice with the person knocking on the doors of the Court of law. The complaint is silent. The complainant suppressed the fact from the Court in the pleading that some of the portions of the same land were purchased by the respondents from the complainant and after litigation, he handed over its possession. The portion which was sold to the respondents was not demarcated by boundaries. Since the petitioner was disinterested in handing over the possession after receiving the consideration, he was searching for a cause to lodge the complaint, and he automatically got the right and tried to encash it.
68-cwp-1219-2018.odt (5)
are no sufficient grounds for proceeding, then he shall dismiss the complaint. For taking the cognizance there must be sufficient ground to proceed with the matter. Issuing of summons is not a matter of course. There should be sufficient grounds to initiate the action against the opponent.
68-cwp-1219-2018.odt
(6)
of the police officers to investigate cognizable offences. True, Section
202, which falls under Chapter XV, also refers to the power of a Magistrate to "direct an investigation by a police officer". But the investigation envisaged in Section 202 is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. The various steps to be adopted for investigation under Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. have been elaborated in Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. Such investigation would start with making the entry in a book to be kept by the officer in charge of a police station, of the substance of the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The investigation started thereafter can end up only with the report filed by the police as indicated in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The investigation contemplated in that chapter can be commenced by the police even without the order of a Magistrate. But that does not mean that when a Magistrate orders an investigation under Section 156(3) it would be a different kind of investigation. Such investigation must also end up only with the report contemplated in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. But the significant point to be notice is, when a Magistrate orders investigation under Chapter XII he does so before he takes cognizance of the offence. The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking
68-cwp-1219-2018.odt (7)
cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all, registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. only thereafter.
68-cwp-1219-2018.odt
(8)
cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer-in-charge of the police station as indicated in S. 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under S. 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer-in-charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.
68-cwp-1219-2018.odt
(9)
procedure envisaged in Chap. XV of the Code. A reading of S. 202(1) of the Code makes the position clear that the investigation referred to therein is of a limited nature. Such investigation is only for helping the Magistrate to decide whether or no there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.
68-cwp-1219-2018.odt (10)
a cognizable offence is made out, or at least there should be some material to proceed to take criminal law in motion. Nothing is on record that may inspire the confidence to exercise0 the powers under Section 156(3) or 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint was devoid of merit and rightly rejected by both Courts. The writ petition is devoid of merit. Hence, it stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Mujaheed//
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and examining the complainant under Section 200 CrPC was correct in view of lack of specific pleadings
Whether the lower courts were justified in holding that the complaint was devoid of merit and insufficient to sustain allegations of an offence under Section 307 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pranati Das Vs. State of West BengalReferred¶27
Pranati Das Vs. State of West Bengal, 2020 SCC Online Cal 132 · Who else cites this
Priyanka Shrivastava Vs. State of U.PReferred¶27
Priyanka Shrivastava Vs. State of U.P
Dilawar Singh Vs. State of DelhiExplained¶38
Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 2007 SC 3234 · Who else cites this
Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya PradeshExplained¶45
Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 2001 SC 571 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Smt. Afaq JahanExplained¶49
Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr, AIR 2006 SC 705 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sakharam s/o Dagduji Jadhav
State of Maharashtra Through AGP
Rameshkumar S/o Jitmal Bagdiya
Ashwin S/o Rameshkumar Bagdiya
Sambhaji S/o Daulat Shinde
Sanjay @ Raju Katariya
S.G. MEHARE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
