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
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.
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
(2019) 16 SCC 272
(2004) 4 SCC 432
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
