LexHDFC SECURITIES LTD. & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2016] 8 S.C.R. 968 HDFC SECURITIES LTD. & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of2016) DECEMBER 09, 2016 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Constitution of India: Art.227 - Criminal complaint filed by respondent no.2 u/s.156(3) alleging execution of unauthorised trades in her account without her consent by the appellants - Magistrate directed registration of FIR against the appellants and ordered for a report after investigation - Registration of FIR u/ ss.409, 420, 465, 467 rlw s.34 and 120-B, !PC - Writ petitions for quashing the FIR - High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that same was premature and there was no need for D exercising the powers either under Art.227 or uls.482 Cr.P.C. - On appeal, held: In the instant case, a fact finding investigation was directed - Appellants approached the High Court even before the stage of issuance of process - Jn particular, the appellants challenged the order passed by the Magistrate uls.156(3), Cr.P. C. E - This order u/s.156(3), Cr.P. C. requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage, requires quashing of the investigation - The stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate - Therefore, at this stage, the High Court F G H correctly held that filing of the petitions u/Art.227 or u/s.482, Cr.P.C., at this stage are nothing but premature - Further, the High Court correctly concluded that the inherent powers of the Court uls.482, Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used - High Court's order affirmed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.482, 156(3). Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the present case, a fact finding investigation was directed and consequently, FIR was registered against appellants No.2 to 4 and also against Relationship Manager of the appellant-company. The accused under Indian Criminal Legal System, unless proved guilty shall always be given a reasonable 968 HDFC SECURITIES LTD. & ORS. v. STATE OF 969 MAHARASHTRA & ANR. space and liberty to defend himself in accordance with the law. A Further, it is always expected from a person accused of an offence pleading not guilty that he shall co-operate and participate in criminal proceedings or proceedings of that nature before a court of law, or other Tribunal before whom he may be accused of an 'offence' as defined in Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, B i.e., an act punishable under the Penal Code or any special or local law. At the. same time, courts, taking cognizance of the offence or conducting a trial while issuing any order, are expected to apply their mind and the order must be a well reasoned one. If on a reading of the complaint, the Magistrate finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and that the C forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter, which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an D alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself. [Paras 15, 21][978-D-F; 982-D-E] Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh 2013 (14) SCR 713 : (2014) 2 SCC 1; S.K. Alagh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2008 (2) SCR 1088 : (2008) 5 SCC 662; Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujrat & Ors. 2007 (9) SCR 1113 : (2008) 5 SCC 668; Thermax Limited & Ors. v. K. M Johny & Ors. 2011 (14) SCR 154 : (2011) 13 SCC 412; Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2015 (1) SCR 377 : (2015) 4 SCC 609 - relied on. 2. The appellants approached the High Court even before the stage of issuance of process. In particular, the appellants challenged the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. This order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage, requires quashing of the investigation. The stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate. Therefore, at this stage the High Court has correctly assessed the facts and the law in this situation and held that filing E F G H 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A of the petitions u
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.