LexDEVARAPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY & ORS. versus V. NARAYANA REDDY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
f
/ ..
,. , . . ,
;:
il
I'·
"
j:, r
..
•· L
. A
·B
c
:.0
524
DEVARAPALLI LAKSHMINARAYAN~ REDDY & ORS .
v.
V. NARAYANA REDDY & ORS.
May 4, 1976
[R. S. SARKAillA, P. N. SHINGIIAL ANI> JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, Ss.
156(3) anti
20~lnresligati?n.t
under-Difference bNWU/1 obj~cts of-Sec. 190(l){a)
''takillg
cogni:wnd',
meanillf o(.
On receiving a complaint :1gain;,t the appellants, for allegedly ~:ommiuin~
offences under ss. 147, 148, 307, 395, 448, 378 and 342, J.P.C., the Judicial
Mngistiate, F.C. _Dh~rmavaram, forwarded it to the . po!icc. under
~-
156(])
Cr.P.C. for investumtton. l11e appellants filed an npphcnlton 111 the Htgh Court
under s. 482 Cc.P.C. 1973, R!r..ttDSt the 1\f:lgi.~trnte's order, but the same wa.•
dismis!>ed.
It was contended befOre this Court that the complaint
include.l
offence$ triable exclusively by the sessions Court, and under s. 202( l) Proviso
l(a), Cr.P.C. 1973, the Magi~trate was prohibited from directing the police to
investigate it, that be was bound to proceed with it him~clf before issuing pro·
cess to the accused. The liPpeal was; Inter :tlia, cOntC'ltcd on the ground thJt
the powers conferred on the Magistr.Jte under ~. 156(3) of the Codo nre inde-
pendent of his pow~r to send the ca ~e for in vc~tig.1tion under s. 202 of tho Code.
Section I ~60) can be invoked before the :'-la~:i strn te tt~kt'5 COAnizance o! the
case but s. 202 comes into operation only after he ~tart.; dc;1line: with the c:t'm·
rl<tint in ueiord~nce with the pro¥i~ions of C:h:lpter XV.
DismC,,iog the appeal of the Court,
HELD: (I l The pov...,r to orJcr police invc,lig:•tion un,kr
.~. 156(3) ;,
diiTcrcnt from the power to direct invc,tig~t \un conferred by s. ~(12 (I). 1 he
two opcrnte in distinct spheres at different s lug.:.~.
The fir,t i~ cx~:rci!.llblc at the
pre·copnizance stage, the second nt the post-co;:niz.am:e ~tage when the Magi:;trutc
is in sei5in of the case. An investigation under s. 202 is ''for the pu~e of
deciding w~ethcr or not there i~ ~ufficicnt ground for proceeding".
11.:1 obje.:t i-
n.ot to inlti:1te a fresh c:.'C on rolicc report, but to ns,ist the M~S.i5:ru:e in
completing procceJin~, already in,;titutd upon
;t cotnpl:<int before him. The
stafo'e nt which \. 202 couiJ hl:~utn.; opcn.tivc wu~ !lever rcacheJ in
thi,
~:~-.e.
[DOB-H; 53 I Jjj
(2} When on re~civina a Nmpbint, tb~ Magi~tratc upplie~ his mind for th~
purpose' of proceedtng under s. 201) o.ud the su~eeding ~cction5 in cbopter XV
of lh<! Code or 1973, he is said to have taken cogni:wnce of the otfo:nce within
the me~n in~ of s. ~ 90(1)(~). _lf i!'s<e~d or proceedin~ under Chap:er xv.
he ha• 10 the utrctse or h11 <lt•creuon, taken uctlon of ~ome other k.ind, he
cnnnot be •:.id to h:~ve taken co~:n.it.ance or any olfc:nce. i'26D-G)
G
Nlrmaliit Sin~lt /loon\'. 1/1t Stutt: vi H'rll /Jo•IIJ;al am( llnr. [197JJ 3 S.C'.C.
753, referred to.
ll
CRIMI.'\AL Al'l'flLATr. JL'J<rSDlCTI0:-1: Criminnl Ap(Xnl No. 219
or 197.5.
_ ( Appc<tl by bpl!cial leave from the judgment nnd orJt·r dalt:d. th.:
20th October, 1975. of the Andhra Pradesh High Court <tt Hydcrahad
in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1890 of 197.5).
1'. Ba.1i Reddy, and A. V. V. Na1r, for the appellants .
. OJ. R. K. Clwudlwry and B. Kania R11o, for rc~pond~nt No. l.
D. L. REDDY V. V. N. REDDY (Sarkaria, J.)
525
P. Ram Reddy, and P. Parameslzwara Rao, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
A
,.
~
'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
~.
J.-Whether in view of Clause (a) of the first Proviso
to s. 202( U of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a Magistrate
'
who receives a complaint, disclosing an offence exclusively triable by
=<
the Court of Session, is debarred from sending the same to the police
for investigation under s. 156(3) of the Code, is the short question
B:
~
that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave.
The
queitioo arises in these circumstances :
!-
Reipondent 1 herein made a complaint on July 26 .. 1975 before
-( •
...
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharamavaram against the appel-
Ian~ herein alleging that on
account of factions existing in village
Thippapalli the appellants formed themselves into an unlawful assembly,
c
armed with deadly weapons, such as axes, spears and sticks, on the
night of June 20, 1975 and entered the houses of several persons
....._
belonging to the opposite party, attacked the inmates and forcibly Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.