P.N.D. Prasad vs Billa Satish

2024 INSC 964 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2029 of 2023)

P.N.D. PRASAD … APPELLANT

VERSUS

BILLA SATISH & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is aggrieved by what has been

observed by the High Court for the State of Telangana in its

order in paragraphs 14 and 15 dated 09.06.2022 passed in

Criminal Petition No.5937 of 2016. As a consequence of the

said observations, the docket order dated 21.07.2014 passed by

the Court of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad,

Miyanpur, Kukatpally, in Crl.M.P. No.2383 of 2013 in Crime Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU SACHDEVA Date: 2024.12.11 16:38:00 IST Reason: No.408 of 2013 filed by the appellant herein has been set aside.

Page 1 of 7

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and

learned senior counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 and learned

counsel for respondent no.6-State and perused the material on

record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on

the filing of a report by the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. K.P.H.B. Cyberabad, the appellant herein filed a protest

petition on 19.09.2013. By then, the Sworn Statement dated

01.08.2013 and 10.01.2013 had been recorded and the expert

opinion had also been recorded. Taking note of the same, the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad by the impugned

docket order accepted the protest petition filed by the

complainant/appellant herein and consequently observed as

under:-

“On perusal of the record found that the police filed second report stating that as false case. After receiving the notice the Defacto Complainant appeared before the court and filed the present case requesting the court to direct to proceed with the further investigation as a statement of Phanikumar disclosed there is no evidence if it is so Phanikumar is also guilty for fabricating the document and deceiving the authorities. The Sworn Statement of the Complainant disclosed that Phanikumar handed over some documents with forged signatures and the accused by using fake rubber stamps created documents and the exports by examining is admitted signatures with the signatures

Page 2 of 7 on the fabricated documents opined that the signatures on the said documents were forged and fabricated. Therefore by considering the Sworn Statement of the Complainant and the Statement of Phanikumar dated 1-8-2013 8-1-2013 the Investigating Agency is directed to reconsider the case and to ascertain the true facts basing on the sworn statement of the Defacto Complainant and by verifying the Expert Opinion and to submit report as early as possible” (underlining by us)

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the private respondents

herein preferred Criminal Petition No.5937 of 2016 under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking a two-

fold relief. Firstly, the private respondents sought for quashing

of the very complaint filed by the appellant herein which prayer

the High Court did not accept as it opined that there was a

prima facie case and the allegations leveled against the private

respondents herein had to be considered by the Trial Court. As

far as the second aspect of the matter is concerned, the High

Court found that the proceedings before the Trial Court were

liable to be set-aside as the Trial Court could not have directed

for a reinvestigation of the matter; that no such powers are

envisaged for the Trial Court to order for reinvestigation in the

matter. In the circumstances, paragraphs “14” and “15” of the

Page 3 of 7 order of the High Court, as assailed by the appellant herein are

reproduced hereunder:-

“14. In the case on hand, a direction was given to the police by the Court to reinvestigate the matter. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said direction is without any jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings before the Trial Court are liable to be set aside. Once the proceedings are liable to be set aside, the only material available before the trial Court is the final report filed by the police stating that there is no material to proceed against the case, wherein the Police have already filed the final report.

15. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally in Crl.M.P.No.2383 of 2013 in FIR No.408 of 2013.”

5. The controversy in this case would turn on the directions

issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in view of the

fact that the expression used in the docket order dated

21.07.2014 is “the investigating agency is directed to reconsider

the case and to ascertain the true facts”.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the private

respondents submitted that the High Court rightly found that

the direction to reconsider the case could not have been issued

by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate inasmuch as no such

Page 4 of 7 power is envisaged in law, therefore, the High Court was

justified in setting aside the docket order dated 21.07.2014.

7. In response to this submission, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the aforesaid expression must be

construed in accordance with what is envisaged in law. It

cannot be to mean that there has to be a reinvestigation of the

case as that was not the import of the aforesaid expression of

the Trial Court; and that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate

only directed continuing of the investigation having regard to

the fact that he was considering the protest petition. The merit

of the observations of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has

to be construed in light of what has been observed in the said

order itself and in accordance with law.

8. It was therefore submitted by learned counsel for the

appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent-State

that it was not necessary for the High Court to have set aside

the docket order dated 21.07.2014, thereby allowing the

criminal petition filed by the private respondents herein. This

is particularly so when the High Court had also found that

there was a prima facie case against the private respondents

Page 5 of 7 herein and the allegations leveled against them could not have

been simply brushed aside or quashed.

9. Considering the submissions advanced at the bar we find

that the choice of expression by the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate may not have been appropriate. However, the

meaning of the said expression could be discerned as a

direction for a continuation of the investigation, having regard

to the material on record. In the circumstances, we find that

the High Court ought to have construed the true import of what

the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had observed in the docket

order dated 21.07.2014. If the same is perceived in the

aforesaid context then the observations made in paragraphs

“14” and “15” of the High Court order would be improper and

hence, to that extent the appeal filed by the appellant herein

has to be allowed and is allowed. The observations at

paragraph “14” and “15” are set aside.

10. Consequently, the direction issued by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate in the docket order dated 21.07.2014

ought to be construed in accordance with the true legal import.

Hence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is now directed to

Page 6 of 7 indicate the consequence of the said order and to conclude the

proceedings in accordance with law by following the procedure

envisaged in law on the protest petition, filed by the appellant

herein.

11. In this regard, reliance could be placed on the

observations of this Court made in the case of Vishnu Kumar

Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home,

Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Another (2019 8 SCC 27) at

paragraphs 14-27, as pointed out by learned counsel for the

respondent-State and learned Senior Counsel for the

respondents.

This appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

..…….…….…………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

….…….………………………………………J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 05, 2024

Page 7 of 7