RAMESHBHAI PANDURAO HEDAU versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 19-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 522 
RAMESHBHAI PANDURAO HEDAU 
V. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2010) 
MARCH 19, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
c 
ss. 156(3) and 202 - Power of Magistrate to order 
investigation - HELD: Powers u/s 156(3) can be invoked by 
Magistrate at pre-cognizance stage whereas powers u/s 202 
are to be invoked after cognizance is taken but before 
issuance of process - Once the Magistrate takes cognizance 
0 he is thereafter precluded from ordering investigation uls 
156(3) - In the instant case, on the complaint fifed, the 
Magistrate having taken cognizance, rightly postponed the 
issuance of process and kept the complaint for court inquiry 
uls 202 - There is no reason to interfere with-the order of the 
E Magistrate as upheld by the· High Court. 
The brother of the appellant was found dead. The 
post mortem report indicated that the death was as a 
result of natural causes. The investigating officer, on the 
basis of the statements of the appellant, his relatives and 
F others as also the post-mortem report, closed th.e 
investigation. Thereafter the appellant filed a complaint 
before the Metropolitan Magistrate alleging that offences 
u/ss 302, 144 read with s.120-B IPC had been committed, 
and prayed for an order for inquiry uls 156(3) CrPC. The 
G Magistrate by his order dated 17 .4.2007 postponed the 
issuance of process and kept the complaint for court 
inquiry in accordance with s.202 CrPC. The writ petition 
filed by the appellant having been dismissed by the High 
Court; he has filed the appeal. 
H 
522 
i 
RAMESHBHAI PANDURAO HEDAU v. STATE OF 
· 523 
GUJARAT 
The question for consideration before the Court A 
was: whether the Magistrate committed any error in 
refusing the appellant's prayer for an investigation by the 
police u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
and resorting to s.202 of the Code. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1;1. The power to direct an investigation to the 
police authorities is available to the Magistrate both u/s 
156(3) Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The only difference is 
B 
the stage at which the said powers may be invoked. The 
C 
Courts are ad idem on the question that the powers u/ 
s156(3) can be invoked by a Magistrate at a pre-
cognizance stage, whereas powers u/s 202 are to be 
invoked after cognizance is taken on a complaint but 
before issuance of process. Once the Magistrate takes 
D 
cognizance of the offence, he is thereafter precluded from 
ordering an investigation u/s156 (3) of the Code. [Para 
13, 14 and 18) (529-G-H; 530-A; 530-E; 531-E-F] 
Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of M.P, 2001 (1) SCR 257 = E 
(2001) 2 SCC 628; Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai & Ors. vs. 
State of Gujarat & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 576; Devarapa/li 
Lakshminarayana Reddy & Ors. vs. V. Narayana Reddy & 
Ors. 1976 Suppl. SCR 524 = (1976) 3 SCC 252; Di/awar 
Singh vs. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641; and Mohd. 
Yousuf vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 627, 
F 
referred to. 
· 
1.2. In the instant case, the Magistrate has treated the 
protest petition filed by the appellant as a complaint u/s 
200 of the Code and has thereafter proceeded u/s 202 
G . 
Cr.P.C. and kept the matter with himself for an inquiry. 
There is nothing irregular in the manner in which the 
Magistrate has proceeded and if at the stage of Sub-
section (2) of s. 202 the Magistrate deems it fit, he may 
H 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(20101 3 s,c.R 
A eitl;ler dismiss the complaint u/s 203 or proceed in terms 
of s.193 and commit the case to the Court of Session. 
There. is no reason to interfere with the order of the 
Magistrate and the views expressed by the High Court in 
.the impugned order on the invocation of jurisdiction by 
-i .the Magistrate u/s 202 Cr.P.C. [Para 18-19] [531-F-H; 632-
A· i;32~B] 
c 
·b 
Case Law Reference: 
2001 (1) SCR 257 
referred to 
para 6 
(2009) 6 sec 576 
referred to 
para 7 
1976 Suppl. SCR 524 referred to 
para 9 
(2007) 12 sec 641 
referred to 
para 14 
(2006) 1 sec 627 
referred to 
para 16 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 548 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 2.7.2008 of the High 
E of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 1458 of 2007. 
Chaitanya Joshi, Nachiketa Joshi, Sudhakar Joshi, Ranjith 
K.C. for the Appellant. 
F 
Meenakshi Lekhi, Hemanitka Wahi, Somnath Padan, 
· Jesal for the Respondent. 
G 
H 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.