The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings against him in which the offences alleged against him are under Sections 417, 418, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The court ruled that the complaint filed directly with the magistrate seeking inquiry does not involve misuse of the criminal justice system, allowing the magistrate to use Section 156(3) of the CrPC to direct police investigation without the complainant having to go through multiple stages.
Brief Facts:
The criminal petitioner has been a practising advocate and a notary and was appointed by the deputy commissioner of endowments as a single trustee of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy temple. He was discharging duties as a single trustee and on allegations of mismanagement, dishonesty, lack of devotion, and misappropriation of funds, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments relieved the criminal petitioner from his duties by an order of removal, and a written complaint was filed by respondent, on which learned magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) for investigation and report. An FIR was registered and the police investigated and filed a police report/ chargesheet stating that the petitioner was to be charged. Thus, the present petition is filed by petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the respondent alone wants to control and rule the people in the village and is jealous of the petitioner and resorted to this mudslinging against the petitioner to tarnish his image. It is further contended that 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 failed 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 and the order of the magistrate is bereft of reasons as an order under Section 156(3) CrPC shall contain brief reasons which prompted the learned magistrate in forwarding the complaint to the police. It is further argued that the petitioner had rightly accounted for all the details of expenses to dig borewells for the temple lands and also spent money from out of his pocket.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that the allegations made in the charge sheet prima facie disclose cognizable offences and therefore cannot be quashed and the argument made by the petitioner is a procedural safeguard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2015 and the procedural acts that occurred earlier cannot be tested on the touchstone of the above-stated ruling. It was further contended that all the other precedents could be considered to see the legality and maintainability of the argument advanced for the petitioner.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that the charge sheet as it stands now makes serious allegations of misappropriation of funds such as lease amounts received, and land acquisition compensation amounts received but not accounted for which constitute cognizable offences, which makes it eminently necessary for a trial to find out the truth of the facts and that has to be done by the trial court and such aspects do not fall for consideration in a quash petition.
The court further observed that the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate did not make any request praying the Magistrate to forward the case to the police for FIR and investigation, thus the case in hand is not covered by the ruling in Priyanka Srivastava as there is no misuse of criminal justice machinery. The complaint in the present case is a prayer to the magistrate himself to inquire and the magistrate has two options in such an event. Either he may embark upon inquiry in terms of sections 200 and 202 CrPC or he can forward the complaint to the police for investigation and as the complaint alleged various cognizable offences, the magistrate seems it fit to direct the police to investigate and thus, exercised Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the complainant first to go to the police and then to go to the superiors in the police department and only then go to the court.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: X vs. Y
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 5562 of 2019
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
