2020 (9) TMI 216 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds Magistrate's power in fair investigation, denies quashing FIR. Petitioner can approach Magistrate with same pleas.

The Court declined to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the Magistrate's wide powers for fair investigation. Citing the Vinubhai ... Quashing of FIR and exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Magistrate's power to order further investigation and supervisory jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - requirement of a fair and just investigation - availability of alternate remedy before the MagistrateQuashing of FIR and exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - availability of alternate remedy before the Magistrate - The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 103 dated 09.03.2020 was not entertained and the Court declined to quash the FIR. - HELD THAT: - The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's exposition in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (reported), observed that the Magistrate possesses wide powers to ensure a fair and proper investigation and to order further investigation at the pre-trial stage. In that light, the High Court was not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR at this stage where the Magistrate's supervisory jurisdiction and the availability of an alternate remedy before the Magistrate remain open. The petitioner's factual contentions and counter-claims were held to be matters more appropriately addressed before the Magistrate rather than by way of quashing under Section 482.Prayer for quashing the FIR was refused and the petition was not allowed to proceed to quash the FIR.Magistrate's power to order further investigation and supervisory jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - requirement of a fair and just investigation - The petitioner was granted liberty to move the Magistrate by raising all pleas raised in the petition, and the Magistrate was directed to decide such application in accordance with law within a stipulated period. - HELD THAT: - In view of the principles that a Magistrate may order further investigation and supervise the adequacy of the police inquiry to ensure a fair and just investigation, the High Court disposed of the petition by leaving the petitioner remedy of approaching the Magistrate. The Court directed that the Magistrate shall consider the application raising the same contentions, decide it after taking into account the pleas and relevant law, and do so within a stipulated timeframe, thereby entrusting the pre-trial supervisory function to the Magistrate.Petition disposed of with liberty to approach the Magistrate; Magistrate to decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a stipulated period.Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C., relying on the Magistrate's supervisory power to secure a fair investigation, and disposed of the petition by granting the petitioner liberty to seek remedy before the Magistrate who was directed to decide the application in accordance with law within a stipulated period. Issues:Petition for quashing FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No. 103 dated 09.03.2020, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, along with all consequential proceedings. The petitioner claimed to have been falsely implicated, stating that the respondent-complainant borrowed Rs. 15 lacs and issued a dishonored cheque to discharge the debt. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the summoning of the complainant by the trial Magistrate. The petitioner alleged the FIR was a counter-blast to avoid repayment, while the respondent argued the cheque was misplaced, and lending such a large amount without proper cause was questionable, especially given the petitioner's occupation as a commission agent.The Court considered the petitioner's prayer for quashing the FIR and referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya case, emphasizing the Magistrate's wide powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to ensure a fair investigation at all stages of the case. The Court noted that the power of the Magistrate to order further investigation continues until the trial commences, and such discretion is crucial to prevent injustice. The Court, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling, declined to quash the FIR based on the principles of fair investigation and justice.Given the circumstances, the petitioner's counsel requested liberty to approach the Magistrate with the same pleas raised in the petition. The Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to move an application before the Magistrate concerned, who would then decide on the application considering the raised pleas within a specified period. This approach aimed to allow the petitioner to present their case before the Magistrate for further consideration in accordance with the law and judicial principles.