Telangana High Court
G. Narsing Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 22 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10152 OF 2023
ORDER
In this Criminal Petition, the petitioners are challenging the cognizance taken by the Additional Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri (for short, 'the trial Court') by allowing the protest petition filed by the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.1737 of 2019 in C.C.No.2102 of 2019 vide order dt.20.04.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a private complaint was filed by the de facto complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') and on the direction of the Court, the Station House Officer, Neredmet, Rachakonda District registered FIR No.496 of 2018 dt.17.08.2018. The Investigation Officer after enquiry filed a final report stating the matter to be civil in nature. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a protest petition and when the same was taken cognizance of by the trial Court vide order dt.30.11.2019, the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as accused 1 and 2, have filed Crl.P.No.1440 of 2020 and vide order dt.11.04.2022, this Crl.P.No.10152 of 2023 2 Court had disposed of the Criminal Petition by observing that the learned Magistrate has to pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law by giving reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Investigation Officer. Pursuant to the same, the trial Court has again passed order dt.20.04.2023 and the reasons given by the trial Court in para 3 of the order are as under:
"3. Perusal of record reveals that complainant stated before the investigation officer during his statement that he took hand loan from A1 and repaid it but the accused no.1 & 2 with a dishonest intention created the agreement of sale basing on the empty bond papers given by the complainant and also filed one promissory note case against the complainant. Investigating officer filed final report stating that the case is civil nature and as the civil case is pending before the court. The complainant is alleging that the accused No.1 made forgery by cheating and by committing breach of trust. Upon considering the statements of complainant recorded by investigating officer and the statements recorded by this court, this court is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the offences U/Sec.209, 406,420,468 r/w 34 IPC. Hence the cognizance taken is taken for the said offences against A1 & A2."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court has only reproduced the contentions of the parties, but has not given any reasons as to why the Court is not agreeing with the findings of the Investigation Officer.
Crl.P.No.10152 of 20233
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Saraswatibai Vs. Lalitabai 1 and Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan 2 in support of his contentions.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 are in respect of the powers of the High Court to interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and also of the power of the trial Court in taking cognizance of the offences and also with regard to the power of the Magistrate to agree or disagree with the investigation report. The legal position therein is not in dispute.
6. This Court finds that in the earlier proceedings, this Court, vide order dt.11.04.2022 in Crl.P.No.1440 of 2020, had clearly directed the trial Court to give reasons for taking cognizance of the offences when the investigation report was in favour of the closure of the case. From a reading of the impugned order dt.20.04.2023, it is clear that the trial Court has not given any reasons as to why the report of the Investigation Officer is not acceptable and why cognizance is to be taken of the 1 (2019) 16 SCC 272 2 (2004) 4 SCC 432 Crl.P.No.10152 of 2023 4 alleged offences. Except for stating that the statement of the complainant recorded by the Investigating Officer and the statements recorded by the Court are taken into consideration, there is no other reason given by the Court. Since the impugned order is devoid of reasons for differing from the report of the Investigating Authority, the same is set aside and the trial Court is directed to comply with the directions of this Court in the order dt.11.04.2022 in Crl.P.No.1440 of 2020 and to pass appropriate orders afresh in Crl.M.P.No.1737 of 2019 in C.C.No.2102 of 2019 in accordance with law.
7. This Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 22.01.2024 Svv