LexVASANTI DUBEY versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2012] 1 S.C.R. 330 VASANTI DUBEY v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2012) JANUARY 17, 2012 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: ss.190(1)(c), 200, 202, 156(3)- Complaint case - Closure report - Filing of chargesheet - Case registered against appellant on the basis of the complaint u/ss. 7 and 13(1 )(d) rl w s. 13(1 )(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - After D investigation, closure report submitted before the Special Judge - Special Judge refused to accept the same and directed the police to file chargesheet against the appellant - High Cowt quashed the order of the Special Judge granting liberty to the Special Judge either to take cognizance ul E s.190(c) or order for further investigation - Special Judge ordered for further investigation and in spite of finding no further material to proceed refused to accept the closure report - It, however, recorded a direction to obtain sanction for prosecution of the appellant and thereafter ordered for re- F investigation of the complaint for the second time - High Court upheld the order of the Special Judge - On appeal, held: On receipt of a complaint, the Magistrate is not bound to take cognizance but he can without taking cognizance direct investigation by the police uls. 156(3) - Once, however, he takes cognizance he must examine the complainant and his G witnesses u/s. 200 - Thereafter, if he requires police investigation or judicial enquiry, he must proceed u/s.202 - But in any case he cannot direct the police to straightaway file charge-sheet - Special Judge instead of following the H procedure enumerated in the Cr.P.C. rejected the closure 330 VASANTI DUBEY v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 331 report and in the process consistently committed error of law A and jurisdiction not only once, but twice - Special Judge was not competent to proceed in the matter without sanction for prosecution and hence could not have ordered for reinvestigation - This amounted to sheer abuse of process of law resulting into vexatious proceedings and harassment of s appellant for more than 10 years without discussing why he disagreed with the closure report. s.200 - Enquiry under - Necessity for - Discussed. ss. 190, 200 - A case based on police report and a C complaint case - Procedure to be followed by the Magistrate - Held: While in a case based on Police report, the Court while taking cognizance will straightaway examine whether a prima facie case is made out or not and will not enter into the correctness of the allegation levelled in the F./.R., a complaint D case requires an enquiry by the Magistrate u/s.200 if he takes cognizance of the complaint - In case he refuses to take cognizance he may either dismiss the complaint or direct the investigating agency to enter into further investigation - In case, he does not exercise either of these two options, he will E have to proceed with the enquiry himself as envisaged and enumerated u/s.200 - But, he cannot exercise the option of directing the Police to submit a charge-sheet as such a course is clearly not envisaged under the Cr.P. C. and more so in a complaint case. F The appellant was posted as the Block Development Officer. She awarded the contract to the Sarpanch of village Baroda and made payment to him for execution of the contract. The Sarpanch/contractor filed a complaint against the appellant in the Lokayukta that he had been G paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- only with respect to the contract awarded to him and when the balance payment of Rs.10,000/- was demanded by him, an illegal demand for a sum of Rs.3,000/- was made by the appellant. A case was registered against the appellant under Sections 7 H - . -· 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R. A and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Lokayukta investigated the matter. In the course of investigation, the complainant resiled from his earlier 8 version and stated that a false complaint was made by him at the instance of someone else whose name he did not divulge. After completion of the investigation, the Lokayukta directed that a closure report should be filed in regard to the complaint lodged against the appellant C and appropriate action should be initiated against the complainant for lodging a false complaint. Accordingly, the closure report was submitted before t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.