M. Mahendar Kumar v. M. Mani & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
Shiva Kirti Singh
Judgment Date: 2015-03-17
Court Decision / Holding: Set aside the High Court’s order; allow the appeal; the transfer of investigation to CBCID is not sustained and the case shall continue under the appropriate investigative authority as per the record.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M. Mahendar Kumar

Respondents

M. Mani
Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. Krishnamurthy
• T. Harish Kumar
• M. Vivekanandan

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Deva Kumar
• G. Ananda Selvam
• G. Rajendran
• Sakthi C Ranjan V.
• Rajavel
• R. V. Kameshwaran
• M. Yogesh Kanna
• S. Janani
• A. Santha Kumaran

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Criminal Appeal arises under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against a Madras High Court order dated 10 January 2014 in Crl.O.P. No.707 of 2014, by which Crime No.147 of 2009 was directed to be investigated by the CBCID, Chennai, instead of the DSP, Crime Branch, Villupuram. The de facto complainant (respondent no.1) sought transfer of investigation to CBCID alleging the CBCID’s involvement would ensure proper investigation and alignment with related proceedings. The High Court treated the matter as if the investigation were still pending before police authorities and admitted the petition; crucially, the appellant and other accused were not impleaded as parties to the petition. A perusal of the record shows that the chargesheet had already been submitted and investigation completed; the order was based on respondent no.1’s statements and did not reflect that the Magistrate had rejected a prayer under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., a decision affirmed by the High Court and later dismissed in S.L.P. This Court found suppression of material facts and a lack of due exercise of mind to relevant facts. It held that invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to transfer the investigation was unwarranted where statutory remedies had already been exhausted and the matter was no longer in the investigation stage. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside, restoring the position prior to the High Court’s intervention.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC, 1973, s.482CrPC, 1973, s.173(8)IPC, 1860, ss.457, 380, 394IPC, 1860, s.412

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under CrPC 482
Suppression of material facts in pleadings or petitions
Principle that extraordinary jurisdiction must not be invoked to circumvent statutory remedies

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argues that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. 482 by invoking inherent powers to transfer an investigation where the record showed the chargesheet had already been submitted and the investigation completed. It asserts that the petition suppressed material facts, notably that the Magistrate had rejected a Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. request for further investigation and that the accused were not made parties to the petition. The remedy under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. could not be bypassed, and the High Court’s order should be set aside to maintain fidelity to statutory processes.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that transferring the investigation to CBCID would advance the cause of justice and that the High Court’s order was in the interest of thorough and proper investigation. They argued suppression of facts was not established, and that the Single Judge was properly aided by the record; they emphasized that the prior orders and the stage of the investigation did not justify interference with investigation proceedings.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

(2015] 2 S.C.R. 1023 # M. MAHENDAR KUMAR A v. ## M. MANI & ORS. > (Criminal Appeal No.461 of 2015) # MARCH 17, 2015 # **[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]** c - - _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482 Inherent_ - _jurisdiction of High Court Petition uls.482 by de facto complainant-respondent no. 1_ - _Transfer of investigation of a case from DSP, Crime Branch to CBCID, Chennai sought_ ·· - _Petition allowed by the High Court_ - _On appeal, held:_ D _Appellant and other accused persons were not made parties_ - _to the case Petition was allowed by simply believing the statement made by respondent no. 1 which created the impression that the matter was still pending before the_ E _police authority when in fact chargesheet had already been submitted long back and accused persons had been_ - _summoned Perusal of the petition reveals that respondent no. 1 omitted to disclose that his prayer u/s. 173(8) Cr.PC. for further investigation by CBCID was fumed down by the_ F _Magistrate; and the said order was upheld by the High Court_ - _and this· Court Single Judge of the High Court was not_ - _properly assisted in the matter Order was passed on_ - _account of non-application of mind to such relevant fact Thus, since the order was passed on account of_ G _suppression of material facts and under_ a _wrong impression that case was still pending before the police authorities at the investigation stage, order passed by the High Court set_ H 1023 1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. ## A _aside._ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No. 707 of B 2014. V. Krishnamurthy, T. Harish Kumar, M. Vivekanandan, forthe Appellant. S. Deva Kumar, G. Ananda Selvam, G. Rajendran, Sakthi C Ranjan V., Rajavel, R. V. Kameshwaran, M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Janani, A. Santha Kumaran for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.** 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. ## D D 2. The appellant is an accused in a complaint case bearing Crime No.14 7 of 2009 pending in the file of learned Judicial Magistrate at Gingee, Tamil Nadu. He is aggrieved by impugned order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') E bearing Crl.O.P.No.707 of 2014 preferred by the de facto complainant, respondent no.1 herein, whereby the Crime No.147 of 2009 has been treated as pending before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu and as such transferred to the file of CBCID, Chennai F for investigation. 3. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal may be noted in brief as follows. The first respondent, Mr. Mani, an assistant of Thiru Kadambapathy Thiru Madam/Mutt lodged a complaint with the Sathyamangalam Police Station alleging that unknown persons had stolen jewels of the Mutt. His G complaint led to F.l.R. No.147 of 2009 registered against unknown persons for offences under Sections 457, 380 and 394 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The de facto complainant/ respondent no.1 subsequent!~' moved the High Court of Judicature at Madras for transfer of investigation to CBCID, H Chennai but such petition bearing Crl.O.P.No.21269 of 2010 1025 ## M. MAHENDAR KUMAR v. M. MANI & ORS. [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] was rejected by the High Court on 22.02.2011. In the A meantime, the investigation had been transferred to Inspector of Police, Valathi Police Station and again it was transferred by the DIG, Villupuram to Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch Villupuram who completed the investigation and filed a chargesheet on 26. 01.2012 B against 11 persons. The appellant is accused no:9 in P.R.C.No.4 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Tamil Nadu. According to appellant, the allegation against him is of being a receiver of stolen goods attracting Section 412 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate issued C process in said P.R.C. No.4 of 2012 on 02.03.2012. The de facto ·complainant, respondent no.1 moved a petition under Section 173(8) of Cr. P. C. before the learned Magistrate bearing Crl.M.P.No.3602 of 2012 and prayed for D allowing further investigation into the case by CBCID. The said petition was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 29.06.2012 by holding that the de facto complainant was not competent to maintain such an application for further investigation. Against that order respondent no.1 preferred E Crl. Revision Petition bearing Crl.R.C. No.1283 of 2012 before the High Court of Madras which came to be dismissed on 07 .11.2012. Respondent no.1 then preferred S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2156 of 2013 against the order of the High Court dated 07.11.2012 and the same was also dismissed F on 08.04.2013: 4. Respondent no.1 made allegations against the first Investigating Officer of the case Mr. N. Gajendran, Inspector of Police, Sathyamangalam Police Station before the G learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram that he had committed malpractice and illegality during investigation of Crime No.147 of 2009. Dissatisfied by inaction on the part of Magistrate, respondent no.1 filed Crl.0.P.No.18904 of 2012 before Madras High Court in which order was passed H 1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. - A on 13.08.2012 and the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram to register a case against the former Investigating Officer named above. This led to registering of FIR in Sathyamangalam Police Station on 18.09.2012 as Crime No.180 of 2012 under Sections - B 196, 206, 218, 219, 221and471 of the IPC against Mr. N. Gajendran. Respondent no.1 filed another Crl.O.P.No.28305 of 2012 before the High Court of Madras which was allowed on 10.12.2012 and the High Court directed the CBCID, Chennai to investigate that case. c 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances respondent no.1, after about 8 months of dismissal of Special Leave Petition on 08.04.2013, in the month of January 2014 filed the case at hand being Crl.O.P.No.707 of 2014 before the D High Court again seeking transfer of investigation of Crime No.147 of 2009 from DSP, Crime Branch, to CBCID, Chennai so that such investigation may go along with investigation in Crime No.180 of 2012 pending against the former Investigating Officer. E 6. The appellant or other accused persons were not made parties to this case and it was allowed by the impugned order dated 10.01.2014 by simply believing the statement made by respondent no.1 which created the F impression that the matter was still pending before the police authority when in fact chargesheet had already been submitted long back and the accused persons had also been summoned. A copy of the Crl.0.P.No.707 of 2014 is available on record and a perusal thereof reveals that G respondent no.1 omitted to disclose that his prayer under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. for further investigation by CBCID had been turned down by the concerned Magistsrate; that order was affirmed by the High Court and H his S.L.P. against the same had also been dismissed by M. MAHENDAR KUMAR v. M. MANI & ORS. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 1027 A this Court. 7. In.the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order has been obtained by suppression of relevant facts and the High Court also erred in allowing such an B. application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. because in absence of the accused persons nobody pointed out that there was specific provision available under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. for ordering further investigation and hence the High Court ought not to have exercised extraordinary inherent C jurisdiction in view of specific provision in the Cr.P.C. being available for the purpose. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the impugned order would o advance the cause of justice and therefore requires no interference by this Court. However, he could not meet the allegation and the submission that respondent no. 1 did not disclose material facts which could have revealed that his earlier application for further investigation by CBCID had E been rejected at all stages and the S.L.P. had also been dismissed by this Court. The impugned order further discloses that the learned Single Judge was not properly assisted in the matter and he could not notice that Crir:ne No.147 of 2009 was no longer pending in the file of Dy.S.P. F of Police or any other police authority because investigation had been completed and chargesheet was submitted long back. It was clearly on account of non application of mind to such relevant fact that the impugned order came to be passed at the initial stage of admission without noticing any G counter affidavit or reply and/or its absence. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are constrained to and hereby set aside the impugned order as it has been passed on account of suppression of material H 1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 2 S.C.R. - A facts and under a wrong impression that Crime No.147 of 2009 was still pending before the police authorities at the investigation stage. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed .. - Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.