Bombay High Court
Vinisha Sawant vs Mahendra Sawant And Anr on 7 October, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: A. S. Gadkari, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:39485-DB
sns 04-wp-2974-2023.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2974 OF 2023
Vinisha Sawant
Age: 43 years, Occ. Service
R/a.1203, Mangla Tower,
Plot no.84, Sector 15,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai
Dist. Thane .....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Mahendra Sawant
Age: 43 years, Occ.Service
R/a. 1203, Mangla Tower,
Plot No.84, Sector 15,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai
Dist. Thane.
2. The State Of Maharashtra .....Respondents
Mr. Advait Tamhankar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Patil, for Respondent No.2-State.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 07th OCTOBER, 2024.
JUDGMENT (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J) :
-
1) Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR dated 2 nd January 2023 bearing No.
1 of 2023 registered with the CBD Belapur Police Station, Navi Mumbai for
offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 497, 500
and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
sns 04-wp-2974-2023.docx
2) The Petition was admitted by Order dated 6 th September 2023 and
the Police were restrained from filing charge sheet in the matter during the
pendency of the present petition.
Respondent No.1 is duly served. Despite service, none appeared for
Respondent No.1 when taken up for hearing.
3) Brief facts of the case are as follows :
3.1) The Petitioner is wife of the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed
a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi bearing M.A
No. 469/2021 praying for registration of FIR against the Petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 420, 465, 497, 500 and 504
read with Section 34 of the IPC. Alternatively, the Respondent No.1 sought
issuance of process under Section 204 of the Cr. P. C against the Petitioner
and secure her presence to face charges under the aforesaid offence.
3.2) The learned Magistrate vide its Order dated 22 nd November 2021
directed the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain commission
of a cognizable offence and submit its report within 30 days.
3.3) The Police submitted its Report dated 18th June 2022 to the trial
Court. It was stated therein that the complaint to be an afterthought, filed
only to counter the complaint lodged by the Petitioner against Respondent
No.1 under Section 498-A of the IPC.
3.4) Subsequently, the Magistrate directed registration of FIR under
Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C by its Order dated 19 th December 2022 and
sns 04-wp-2974-2023.docx
directed the Police to investigate the allegations made by the Respondent
No.1. Pursuant to this Order, the subject FIR was registered for the offences
as alleged.
3.5) The Petitioner filed a Revision Application assailing Order dated 19 th
December 2022 before the Sessions Court, Thane. The Sessions Court, by its
Order dated 4th May 2023 observed that, while the Order passed by the
Magistrate was erroneous, since the FIR was already registered, it was not
jurisdictionally competent to quash the same. The Petitioner has thus
assailed the FIR No. 1/2023 dated 2 nd January 2023 registered with the
CBD Belapur Police Station, Navi Mumbai by way of the present petition.
4) Mr. Advait Tamhankar learned counsel appears for the Petitioner and
Mr. Ajay Patil, learned APP represents the State.
5) Although Mr. Tamhankar attacked the registration of the impugned
FIR on various grounds on the facts of the case, the thrust of his argument
was that since the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and directed
an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C, it was not open to the
Magistrate to revert back to the pre-cognizance stage as the same being
impermissible under the scheme of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that Order
directing registration of FIR not only fails to consider the report of the
Police but does not even mention the same which clearly indicates a total
non-application of mind. He thus challenged the Order before the Sessions
Court, Thane, which agreed with his submissions however, was rendered
sns 04-wp-2974-2023.docx
powerless to set it aside considering that in the interregnum, the FIR was
registered and the jurisdiction to quash the same was a prerogative of the
High Court. Mr. Tamhankar also relied on various decisions of the Supreme
Court and of this Court in support of his contentions, as under:
(1) Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.1
(2) Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat2
(3) Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai
Patel & Ors.3
(4) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri & Ors.4
(5) Madhao and Another v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.5
(6) Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat6
(7) Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others v. V. Narayana Reddy
and Others7
(8) Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others v. State of Gujarat and
Another8
(9) Mohammad Ataullah v. Ram Saran Mahto9
(10) Wasudeo s/o Mahadeo Masurkar v. Ashok s/o Motiramji Admane10
(2014) 2 SCC
(2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 439
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 517
2023 SCC OnLine SC 569; AIR 2023 SC (Cri) 905
(2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 615
(2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 185
(1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 252
(2019) 17 Supreme Court Cases 1
(1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 266
Criminal Application [APL] No.109 of 2015 with
Criminal Application [APL] No.209 of 2015 dtd. 20th January 2017.
sns 04-wp-2974-2023.docx
(11) Sharad Bansilal Modi & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.11
6) Mr. Patil justified the Order passed by the Magistrate and submitted
that in any case the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence and
hence the Petition be dismissed.
7) We have heard the counsels and perused the record with their
assistance.
8) The only question that arises for our determination is, whether the
Order passed by the Magistrate directing registration of FIR is legally
tenable once having taken cognizance of the complaint and directing
inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr. P.C.
8.1) At the outset, it may be noted that, the law regarding powers of the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. is quite well settled. Section 156
(3) falls in Chapter XII, under the caption: "Information to the Police and
their powers to investigate"; while Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is in Chapter XV
which bears the heading: "Of complaints to Magistrates". The power to
order police investigation under Section 156 (3) is different from the power
to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1). The two operate in
distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre-
cognizance stage, the second at the post cognizance stage when the
Magistrate is in seisin of the case. In the case of a complaint regarding the
commission of a cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be
Criminal Writ Petition No.1541 of 2016 dated 20th December 2017.
sns 04-wp-2974-2023.docx
invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under
Section 190(1)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon
the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back
to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3).
9) An order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C., is a
peremptory reminder or intimation to the Police to exercise their plenary
powers of investigation under Section 156(1). Such an investigation
embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of
evidence under Section 156 and ends with a report or charge-sheet under
Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 of Cr.P.C. comes in at a stage
when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in proceedings
under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to take a decision as
to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the
Magistrate is empowered under Section 202 to direct, within the limits
circumscribed by that Section an investigation "for the purpose of deciding
whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding". Thus, the object
of an investigation under Section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police
report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already
instituted upon a complaint before him.
10) In the case in hand, the Magistrate by its Order dated 22 nd November
2022 directed the concerned police station to conduct 'preliminary inquiry'
to ascertain commission of a cognizable offence and submit a report within
sns 04-wp-2974-2023.docx
30 days. This order itself is untenable in law. There is no provision in the Cr.
P.C vesting jurisdiction in the Magistrate to direct a 'preliminary inquiry'.
The term 'inquiry' is defined in Section 2(g) of the Code which reads as
under: -
"2(g). 'inquiry' means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this
Code by a Magistrate or Court."
The Supreme Court in the decision of Lalita Kumari (Supra) held that
'inquiry' under the Code is relatable to a judicial act and not to the steps
taken by the Police which are either investigation after the stage of Section
154 of the Code or termed as 'preliminary inquiry' and which are prior to
the registration of FIR, even though, no entry in the General Diary is made.
Thus 'preliminary inquiry' can be done only by the Police under certain
situations to ascertain commission of a cognizable offence. It is not within
the powers of the Magistrate to direct the Police to conduct a 'preliminary
inquiry' having once taken cognizance. In this view of the matter, the Order
dated 22nd November 2022 is itself not tenable in law.
11) Furthermore, once having taken cognizance of the complaint and
adopted that path embodied in the Cr. P.C, the Magistrate cannot switch
back to the pre-cognizance stage and direct registration of FIR and
investigation by the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code. Strangely,
there is no whisper of directions already given in the Order of 22 nd
November 2022 in the Order dated 19 th December 2022 of the Magistrate
sns 04-wp-2974-2023.docx
directing investigation and submission of investigation report. There is even
no mention of the Police Report dated 18th June 2022.
11.1) Be that as it may. Once the Police have reported that no
cognizable offence is made out, there is nothing to be gained by again
directing investigation by Police upon registration of FIR. As observed by
the Supreme Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra12,
if the Magistrate agrees with the Police Report, he may accept it and close
the proceedings. In the alternative, on the consideration of the Report, it
will be open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the Report and proceed
to take cognizance of the offence by issuing process, notwithstanding the
contrary opinion of the Police in their Report. In that event, the Magistrate
had two options namely, either to dismiss the complaint under Section 203
or to issue process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. It appears from the Orders
passed by the Magistrate that, the Magistrate is not clear regarding
commission of a cognizable offence. In any case, it is incumbent upon the
Magistrate to follow the scheme of the Cr.P.C. Having transgressed in the
post-cognizance stage, it is impermissible for the Magistrate to suddenly
back track to the pre-cognizance stage.
12) In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to quash the
FIR No. 1/2023 dated 2nd January 2023 registered with the CBD Belapur
Police Station, Navi Mumbai, lodged pursuant to the directions of the
AIR 1968 SC 117
sns 04-wp-2974-2023.docx
Judicial Magistrate First Class, 10th Court, Navi Mumbai by its impugned
Order.
The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
13) Rule is accordingly made absolute.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2024.10.07
19:20:52
+0530
