Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2008

Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

When a complaint alleging fraud and other related offences is filed, what procedure should a Magistrate follow? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Ketankumar Babulal Patel vs. Kesarben Jesangji. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in directing an inquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after cognizance had been taken. The bench comprised Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) and was numbered as Criminal Case No. 103 of 2008. The complainants had initially approached the District Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad, on 29 March 2008, requesting action under Section 154 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They were advised to approach the police station, but their complaint was allegedly not accepted due to the political influence of the respondents, who were prominent builders. It was also alleged that the District Superintendent of Police informed respondent no. 1, a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly from the ruling party, about the complaint instead of initiating action.

Timeline

Date Event
29 March 2008 Complainants approached the District Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad, under Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
29 March 2008 Complaint filed before the Sarkhej Police Station but allegedly not accepted.
N/A Complaint filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural), numbered as Criminal Case No.103 of 2008.
11 April 2008 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) passed an order directing inquiry and report under Section 202 of Cr. P.C.

Course of Proceedings

The Gujarat High Court disposed of several petitions through the impugned judgment. The High Court quashed the order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Complaint No.103 of 2008 and ordered an inquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code. The High Court directed that the complaint be registered as an FIR by the officer in charge of the concerned Police Station for the offences disclosed in the complaint.

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes:

  • Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for criminal breach of trust.
  • Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
  • Section 465, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for forgery.
  • Section 467, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section specifies the punishment for forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
  • Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating.
  • Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines punishment for criminal conspiracy.
  • Section 154(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section relates to the procedure for recording information in cognizable cases.
  • Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation.
  • Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section describes the examination of the complainant by Magistrate.
  • Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section allows the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process and inquire into the case.
  • Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with dismissal of complaint.
  • Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section relates to the issue of process if sufficient ground for proceeding exists.
See also  Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 37 Appeals under Arbitration Act: Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers (2021)

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

  • The High Court’s direction to resort to Section 156(3) of the Code after cognizance had been taken was impermissible.
  • The procedure should have been in terms of Sections 202 and 204 of the Code.
  • Once the Magistrate held that a prima facie offence was made out, the only course available was the issuance of process.

Arguments by the Respondents:

  • The High Court had the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry.
  • The trial Court could have directed action under Section 156(3) to be taken.
  • If the investigation is undertaken by the police, it can take custody of the records and produce them to the court as and when necessary.
  • The Magistrate had three courses open: to direct investigation, to close the proceeding if no offence was made out, or to take cognizance.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

  1. What is the correct procedure to be followed by the Magistrate when a complaint is filed alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
What is the correct procedure to be followed by the Magistrate when a complaint is filed alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? The matter was remitted to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh. The trial Court’s order was not clear as to which of the alternatives (directing investigation or taking cognizance) was being resorted to. The High Court had not dealt with this aspect adequately.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court How Considered
Minu Kumari and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 359) Supreme Court of India The position of law regarding the powers of the Magistrate when a complaint is filed was highlighted. Specifically, para 16 of this case was to be considered by the trial court while deciding the matter afresh.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Reg.) through its President v. Union of India and others (1996 (11) SCC 582) Supreme Court of India This case was referred to in Minu Kumari’s case to highlight the powers of the Magistrate.
Gangadhar Janard an Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2004 (7) SCC 768) Supreme Court of India This case was referred to in Minu Kumari’s case to highlight the powers of the Magistrate.
Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 N/A Discussed in relation to the Magistrate’s power to order an investigation.
Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 N/A Discussed in relation to the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission Treatment by the Court
The High Court’s direction to resort to Section 156(3) of the Code after cognizance had been taken was impermissible. The Court noted that it was unclear whether the trial court was resorting to directing investigation or taking cognizance.
The High Court had the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry. The Court remitted the matter to the trial court to decide afresh, indicating that the High Court’s direction was not definitively upheld.
See also  Supreme Court strikes down Bihar rule for judicial exam selection: Rahul Dutta vs. State of Bihar (2019)

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Minu Kumari and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 359): The Court relied on this case to highlight the powers of the Magistrate when a complaint is filed and directed the trial court to consider para 16 of this judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of clarity in the trial court’s order regarding whether it was directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or taking cognizance of the offence. The Court emphasized the need for the trial court to clearly indicate which course of action it was pursuing.

Reason Percentage
Lack of clarity in the trial court’s order 70%
Need for the trial court to indicate its course of action 30%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category Percentage
Fact (consideration of the factual aspects of the case) 30%
Law (consideration of legal aspects) 70%

Key Takeaways

  • Magistrates must clearly specify whether they are directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or taking cognizance of an offence.
  • The High Court should ensure that the trial court’s order is clear before issuing directives.
  • The decision highlights the importance of following the correct procedure when dealing with complaints alleging offences.

Directions

The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh expeditiously, in light of what has been stated in para 16 of Minu Kumari’s case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that when a complaint is filed before a Magistrate, the Magistrate must clearly indicate whether they are directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or taking cognizance of the offence. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural clarity in handling criminal complaints.

Conclusion

In Ketankumar Babulal Patel vs. Kesarben Jesangji, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the trial court, emphasizing the need for clarity in the trial court’s orders when dealing with complaints alleging offences. The Court highlighted the importance of following the correct procedure and clearly indicating whether an investigation is being directed or cognizance is being taken.

Source: Ketankumar Babulal Patel vs. Kesarben Jesangji