2020 (12) TMI 1237 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies Magistrate's power to order FIRs under CrPC & IPC without taking cognizance

Jayant and Ors. Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate's order directing the registration of FIRs under Section 156(3) CrPC for offences under the IPC and MMDR Act, ... Interpretation of stature - whether the provisions of the MMDR Act explicitly or impliedly exclude the provisions of the Penal Code (IPC) when the act of an Accused is an offence both under the Penal Code and under the provisions of the MMDR Act? HELD THAT:- Section 22 of the MMDR Act would show that cognizance of any offence punishable under the MMDR Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be taken only upon a written complaint made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Therefore, on a fair reading of Section 22 of the MMDR Act, the bar would be attracted when the Magistrate takes cognizance. In the case of MANOHAR M. GALANI VERSUS ASHOK N. ADVANI AND ORS. [1999 (11) TMI 899 - SUPREME COURT], when the bar Under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure was pressed into service and the High Court quashed the complaint and enquiry on the basis of the FIR registered by the complainant, while setting aside the order passed by the High Court, this Court accepted the submission on behalf of the State that the bar Under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure can be gone into at the stage when the court takes cognizance of the offence and investigation on the basis of the information received could not have been quashed and an investigating agency cannot be throttled at this stage from proceeding with the investigation particularly when the charges are serious and grave. The High Court has not committed any error in not quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate and not quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences Under Sections 379 and 414. It is required to be noted that the learned Magistrate in exercise of the suo motu powers conferred Under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure directed the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to lodge/register the crime case/FIR and directed initiation of investigation and directed the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to submit a report after due investigation. As the appeal preferred by the State on the premise that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, confirmed by the High Court, affects the powers of the authorised person to compound the offence, in exercise of powers Under Rule 53 of the 1996 Rules and Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules is concerned, the same is absolutely misconceived. By the order passed by the learned Magistrate, confirmed by the High Court, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that directing to file the first information report/crime case for the offences under the Indian Penal Code and even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, it affects any of the powers of the authorised person to compound the offence. The appeals filed by the violators/private Appellants are partly allowed, to the extent quashing the proceedings for the offences under the MMDR Act - appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh stands dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the Magistrate's order directing the registration of FIRs under Section 156(3) CrPC for offences under the IPC and MMDR Act is sustainable.2. Whether the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act applies to the initiation of criminal proceedings.3. Whether compounding the offence under the MMDR Act precludes further criminal proceedings under the IPC.4. Whether the State's appeal challenging the High Court's judgment affects the powers of the authorized person to compound the offence.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Magistrate's order directing the registration of FIRs under Section 156(3) CrPC for offences under the IPC and MMDR Act is sustainable:The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate's order directing the registration of FIRs under Section 156(3) CrPC, stating that the Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the alleged offences, thereby not attracting the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate's order for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC is a pre-cognizance stage and cannot be equated with post-cognizance. The Court referred to its earlier decisions, including the case of *Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa* and *R.R. Chari v. State of U.P.*, to support its conclusion that the Magistrate's order for investigation does not constitute taking cognizance.2. Whether the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act applies to the initiation of criminal proceedings:The Court clarified that the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act is attracted only when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and orders issuance of process/summons. The Court held that there is no bar against the registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of the investigation, as contemplated by Section 173 CrPC. The Court reiterated that the prohibition under Section 22 applies only when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence under the MMDR Act.3. Whether compounding the offence under the MMDR Act precludes further criminal proceedings under the IPC:The Court differentiated between offences under the MMDR Act and the IPC, stating that they are distinct and different. The Court held that while compounding the offence under the MMDR Act precludes further proceedings under the MMDR Act (as per Section 23A), it does not bar proceedings for offences under the IPC, such as Sections 379 and 414 IPC. The Court emphasized that the compounding of offences under the MMDR Act does not affect the prosecution of offences under the IPC.4. Whether the State's appeal challenging the High Court's judgment affects the powers of the authorized person to compound the offence:The Court dismissed the State's appeal, stating that the order passed by the Magistrate and confirmed by the High Court does not affect the powers of the authorized person to compound the offence under Rule 53 of the 1996 Rules and Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules. The Court noted that the State had supported the Magistrate's order before the High Court and that the impugned judgment was in favor of the State. The Court found the State's appeal to be misconceived and without merit.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the private appellants to the extent of quashing the proceedings for the offences under the MMDR Act (Sections 4/21). However, it upheld the continuation of proceedings for the offences under the IPC (Sections 379 and 414). The appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed. The Court emphasized the need for stringent provisions to deter violators and protect the environment and public property.