M. MAHENDAR KUMAR versus M. MANI & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 1023 · Decided: 17-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 2 S.C.R. 1023 
M. MAHENDAR KUMAR 
v. 
M. MANI & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.461 of 2015) 
MARCH 17, 2015 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
A 
8 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
c 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Inherent 
jurisdiction of High Court - Petition uls.482 by de facto 
complainant-respondent no. 1 - Transfer of investigation of 
a case from DSP, Crime Branch to CBCID, Chennai sought 
·· - Petition allowed by the High Court - On appeal, held: D 
Appellant and other accused persons were not made parties 
to the case - Petition was allowed by simply believing the 
statement made by respondent no. 1 which created the 
impression that the matter was still pending before the E 
police authority when in fact chargesheet had already been 
submitted long back and accused persons had been 
summoned - Perusal of the petition reveals that respondent 
no. 1 omitted to disclose that his prayer u/s. 173(8) Cr.PC. 
for further investigation by CBCID was fumed down by the F 
Magistrate; and the said order was upheld by the High Court 
and this· Court - Single Judge of the High Court was not 
properly assisted in the matter - Order was passed on 
account of non-application of mind to such relevant fact -
Thus, since the order was passed on account of G 
suppression of material facts and under a wrong impression 
that case was still pending before the police authorities at 
the investigation stage, order passed by the High Court set 
1023 
H 
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A aside. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 461 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2014 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No. 707 of 
B 2014. 
V. Krishnamurthy, T. Harish Kumar, M. Vivekanandan, forthe 
Appellant. 
S. Deva Kumar, G. Ananda Selvam, G. Rajendran, Sakthi 
C Ranjan V., Rajavel, R. V. Kameshwaran, M. Yogesh Kanna, 
S. Janani, A. Santha Kumaran for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for 
the parties. Leave granted. 
D 
2. The appellant is an accused in a complaint case 
bearing Crime No.14 7 of 2009 pending in the file of learned 
Judicial Magistrate at Gingee, Tamil Nadu. He is aggrieved 
by impugned order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in a petition under Section 482 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') 
E bearing Crl.O.P.No.707 of 2014 preferred by the de facto 
complainant, respondent no.1 herein, whereby the Crime 
No.147 of 2009 has been treated as pending before the 
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Tamil 
Nadu and as such transferred to the file of CBCID, Chennai 
F for investigation. 
3. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal may be 
noted in brief as follows. The first respondent, Mr. Mani, an 
assistant of Thiru Kadambapathy Thiru Madam/Mutt lodged 
a complaint with the Sathyamangalam Police Station alleging 
that unknown persons had stolen jewels of the Mutt. His 
G complaint led to F.l.R. No.147 of 2009 registered against 
unknown persons for offences under Sections 457, 380 and 
394 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The de facto complainant/ 
respondent no.1 subsequent!~' moved the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras for transfer of investigation to CBCID, 
H Chennai but such petition bearing Crl.O.P.No.21269 of 2010 
M. MAHENDAR KUMAR v. M. MANI & ORS. 
1025 
[SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
was rejected by the High Court on 22.02.2011. In the A 
meantime, the investigation had been transferred to 
Inspector of Police, Valathi Police Station and again it was 
transferred by the DIG, Villupuram to Deputy Superintendent 
of Police, District Crime Branch Villupuram who completed 
the investigation and filed a chargesheet on 26. 01.2012 B 
against 11 persons. The appellant is accused no:9 in 
P.R.C.No.4 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, 
Gingee, Tamil Nadu. According to appellant, the allegation 
against him is of being a receiver of stolen goods attracting 
Section 412 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate issued C 
process in said P.R.C. No.4 of 2012 on 02.03.2012. The 
de facto ·complainant, respondent no.1 moved a petition 
under Section 173(8) of Cr. P. C. before the learned 
Magistrate bearing Crl.M.P.No.3602 of 2012 and prayed for D 
allowing further investigation into the case by CBCID. The 
said petition was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate 
on 29.06.2012 by holding that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.