SRINIVAS GUNDLURI & ORS. versus M/S. SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 30-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 278 
SRINIVAS GUNDLURI & ORS. 
v. 
MIS. SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION 
CORPORATION & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1377 of 2010) 
JULY 30, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 156(3) - Police 
C officer's power to investigate cognizable case - Criminal 
complaint against appellants u/ss. 405, 406, 418, 420, 427, 
503, 504, 506134 and 1208 of /PC before Magistrate -:-
Magistrate uls. 156(3) directing police officer to register FIR, 
conduct investigation and submit charge sheet thereafter -
D Legality of- Held: To proceed u/s. 156 (3), a bare reading of 
complaint is required and if it discloses a cognizable offence, 
then Magistrate instead of applying his mind to the complaint 
for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for 
proceeding, may direct police for investigation - On facts, 
E Magistrate only ordered investigati-0n uls. 156 (3) - He 
perused the complaint without examining the merits of the 
claim that there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not -
Thus, the Magistrate did not commit any illegality in directing 
police investigation. 
F 
The respondent-SEPCO and SSVG entered into a 
works contract. It is alleged that SSGV misappropriated 
the advance money given by SEPCO. SEPCO filed a 
criminal complaint against SSVG u/ss. 405, 406, 418, 420, 
427, 503, 504, 506/34 and 1208 of IPC before the 
G Magistrate, Korba. By the order dated 04.07.2009, the 
Magistrate allowed the application filed under section 156 
(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed 
the Station House Officer to register FIR, after due 
H 
278 
SRINIVAS GUNDLURI v. SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER 
279 
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 
enquiry, and to submit a chargesheet after investigation. 
A 
The appellant-Managing Director and Principal Officer of 
SSVG filed a Writ Petition praying for quashing the order 
passed by the Magistrate and to prohibit further 
proceedings pending before the Magistrate. The Single 
Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition. The s 
Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order. 
Thereafter, the police took the appellant into custody and 
produced him for transit warrant before CMM, Hyderabad. 
The appellant was granted transit bail. By order dated 
22.04.2010, the CMM rejected the application for extension c 
of transit bail and issued non-bailable warrant against the 
appellant for his arrest and production before the 
Magistrate, Korba. The appellant challenged the order. 
The High Court passed an interim order staying the said 
order. Hence these appe~ls. 
Allowing the appeal of SEPCO and dismissing that 
of SSVG, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1 From the order of the Magistrate dated 
04.07.2009 it is clear that the Magistrate only ordered 
E 
investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973. It also shows that the 
Magistrate perused the complaint without examining the 
merits of the claim that there is sufficient ground for 
proceeding or not, directed the police officer concerned 
F 
for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code. The 
Single Judge of the High Court rightly observed that the 
Magistrate did not bring into motion the machinery of 
Chapter XV of the Code. He did not examine the 
complainant or his witnesses under section 200 of the 
G 
Code which is the first step in the procedure prescribed 
under the said Chapter. The question of taking next step 
of the procedure envisaged in section 202 did not arise. 
Instead of taking cognizance of the offence, the 
Magistrate merely allowed the application filed by the 
H 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A complainant/SEPCO under section 156(3) of the Code 
and sent the same along with its annexure for 
investigation by the police officer concerned under 
section 156 (3) of the Code. To proceed under section 156 
(3) of the Code, what is required is a bare reading of the 
B complaint and if it discloses a cognizable offence, then 
the Magistrate instead of applying his mind to the 
complaint for deciding whether or not there is sufficient 
ground for proceeding, may direct the police for 
investigation. In the instant case, the Single Judge and 
C Division Bench of the High Court rightly pointed out that 
the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the complaint for 
deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for 
proceeding and, therefore, the Magistrate has not 
committed any illegality in directing the police to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.