This criminal petition challenges an order quashing an FIR. The High Court held that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to direct reinvestigation after a final report was filed without fresh material, invoking Supreme Court precedent.
Order dated 25-06-2012 in CCCR No. 6345 of 2012 and consequential FIR registered thereupon are quashed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6065 OF 2012
ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash orders dated 25-06-2012 in CCCR 6345 of 2012 on the file of the court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrtate, Vijayawada where under the complaint filed by 1st respondent herein was forwarded to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and called for a report.
02. Advocate for petitioner submitted that 1s t respondent gave a police complaint on 25-09-2011, on the basis of which FIR in Cr.No.147 of 2011 was registered and police after investigation filed charge sheet, which is registered as CC No.141 of 2012 against husband only, as the police have not filed charge sheet against petitioners herein, 1st respondent filed the present complaint which is registered as CCCR 6345 of 2012 with a request to take the complaint and issue process and court below forwarded it to police for filing final report. It is submitted that learned Magistrate is not correct in forwarding the complaint to police. If 1st respondent is aggrieved by the final report of police, she has to file a protest petition, but cannot file a fresh complaint on the same allegations for which already investigation was conducted and final report is filed. It is further submitted that if during the course of trial in C.C.No.141 of 2012 some material comes on record against petitioners, then she has to move the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead them additional accused and without following the procedure, she filed the complaint and court below forwarded it to the police again for investigation which is illegal and the same has to be set aside. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and Others ([1] ) where under the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“25. What emerges from the abovementioned decisions
of this Court is that once a charge-sheet is filed under Section 173(2) CrPC and either charge is framed or the accused are discharged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of a protest petition, take cognizance of the offence complained of or on the application made by the investigating authorities permit further investigation under Section 173(8). The Magistrate cannot suo motu direct a further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC or direct a reinvestigation into a case on account of the bar of Section 167(2) of the Code.
26. In the instant case, the investigating authorities did not apply for further investigation and it was only upon the application filed by the defacto complainant under Section 173(8) was a direction given by the learned Magistrate to reinvestigate the matter. As we have already indicated above, such a course of action was beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate. Not only was the Magistrate wrong in directing a reinvestigation on the application made by the defacto complainant, but he also exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the said application filed by the defacto complainant.
03. As seen from the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct reinvestigation for which already a final report is filed and the Magistrate could take recourse to Section 319 Cr.P.C. if any fresh material was brought before him.
04. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that in this case the Magistrate committed error in forwarding the complaint for reinvestigation without any fresh material and, therefore, the order of learned Magistrate dated.25-06-2012 is liable to be set aside. However, the first respondent is at liberty to avail the remedies available under law including filing protest petition.
With this observation, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing
the order dated 25-06-2012 in CCCR No. 6345 of 2012 on the file of the court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, consequently FIR in Cr.No.141 of 2012 of Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada is quashed which registered on the basis of impugned order.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.
______________ S.RAVI KUMAR, J 25.08.2014. TSNR
[1] (2009) 9 SCC 129
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Magistrate has jurisdiction to direct reinvestigation after a final report is filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on application by complainant.
Whether the ordering of reinvestigation without fresh material violates the bar of Section 167(2) of the Code.
Whether the impugned order quashing FIR should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and OthersRelied on¶5
(2009) 9 SCC 129 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
1st Respondent
S.RAVI KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
