LexMADHAO AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 5 S.C.R. 484 MADHAO AND ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.684 of 2013) MAY 3, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.156(3) and 190 - Government of Maharashtra framed scheme as per which C land was to be purchased by the Government and made available to SCs ~nd neo-Buddhists below the poverty line - Appellants while working under the Scheme were involved in execution of sale deeds in favour of the Government of Maharashtra - Complaint against appellants and others D alleging that under the si3id scheme, certain land was purchased from a dead person - Direction of Magistrate to the Police to investigate the matter u/s.156(3) and to submit a detailed report within one month - Challenged - Held: Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence can order E investigation u/s. 156(3) - When a Magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to take cognizance - If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation uls. 156(3) will be conducive to justice F 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 alternative to taking cognizance of the offence itself - Where a Magistrate orders investigation by the police G before taking cognizance uls.156(3) and receives the report thereupon he can act on the report and discharge the accused or straightaway issue process against the accused or apply his mind to the complaint filed before him and take action ul s. 190- In the instant case, while issuing direction for H 484 MADHAO AND ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 485 AND ANR. investigation u/s. 156(3), the Magistrate did not exceed his· A power nor violated any of the provisions contained in CrPC - Procedure adopted and power exercised by the Magis.trate was acceptable and in accordance with the scheme of CrPC. The Government of Maharashtra framed a scheme as 8 per which land was to be purchased by the Government and made available to Scheduled Castes and neo- Buddhists below the poverty line. As per the Scheme, a Committee was constituted in each district and the Collector of the district was to act as Head of the Committee. Appellant No.1 while working as Special C District Welfare Officer and Member Secretary of the Samiti under the Scheme, did several transactions under the supervision of the District Collector. Appellant No.2 was working as Assistant of appellant No.1 in the said Scheme. She was authorized by appellant No.1 to get D Sale deeds executed in favour of the Government of Maharashtra under the Scheme. A person claiming himself to be a Social Worker, filed a Criminal Complaint in the court of the Judicial E Magistrate, First Class, against the appellants, Sub- Registrar and few more persons alleging that the accused persons had purchased certain land from a dead person, while the appellants were acting in their official capacity under the said Scheme. The Magistrate directed the Police to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) CrPC and to submit a detailed report within one month. The appellants filed application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of their prosecution. High Court dismissed the application. F G The procedure adopted and the power exercised by the Magistrate ordering investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was challenged in the instant appeals. The question that arose for consideration was H 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A whether the Magistrate was justified in directing the Police to investigate and submit a detailed report within one month under Section 156(3) CrPC. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Sub-section (3) of Section 156 CrPC enables any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation in terms of sub-section (1) of that section. Any judicial magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence can order investigation under C Section 156(3) CrPC. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath. be~ause he. was ·not taking cognizance of any oftence therein. [Paras 11, 12] [493-C- D; 494-A-,B] 0 . CREF Finance Ltd. v. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd. and Anr. (2005)7 SCC 467: 2005 (2) Sup
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.