1

   REPORTABLE

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2002 OF 2011  (Arising out of SLP(Crl).No. 6917 OF 2011

TILAKNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.& ORS.                 Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. & ANR.                              Respondent(s)

    J U D G M E N T

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the appellants - Tilak  

Nagar Industries Ltd., which is a Company incorporated under the  

Companies Act, and by its Chairman  and Senior Vice President of  

the Company under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  

(hereinafter referred to as the "Code")  praying for quashing of  

the proceedings in connection with Criminal Case No. 252 of 2010  

dated  22.06.2010  registered  at  Chikkadpally  Police  Station,  

Hyderabad.   

   The  High  Court,  by  a  detailed  order,  dismissed  the  

appellants' case for quashing, inter alia, on the ground that  

the complaint disclosed prima facie case.  The said order of the  

High Court has been impugned by the appellants before us on  

various grounds.

When the matter was taken up at the previous stage and

2

after  we   heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  having  

regard to the stand taken by the parties, we asked the learned  

counsel for the appellant - Company to issue a publication in  

respect of respondent no.2 - the complainant clarifying therein  

that the  expression "Judas" used against respondent no.2, was  

wrongly published and the same is withdrawn by the appellant  

Company.

Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the appellant - Company upon instruction, has stated before us  

that his client is prepared to issue similar insertion in a  

prominent newspaper along with photo of respondent no.2 stating  

therein  that expression "Judas" was used in connection with  

respondent no.2 inadvertently.   

   However, Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel for the  

respondent  no.2  did  not  accept  the  said  proposal.  We  have  

therefore heard the matter on merits.

     On merits, Mr. Luthra further submitted that the complaint  

has been filed by respondent no.2 by way of  a counter blast  

having regard to the material facts on record.   Mr. Luthra  

tried  to  take  us  to  various  other  complaints  filed  against  

respondent no.2 by the  appellant company as also the civil suit  

which was filed against him by the Company.  While exercising  

our jurisdiction in connection with quashing of a complaint, we  

do not feel that we should directly go into all these factual  

assertions and counter assertions between the parties. However,  

while advancing the contention  that this complaint has been

3

filed by respondent no.2  so that the appellant may withdraw  

cases against him,  Mr. Luthra further submits to the effect  

that  the  offences  alleged  against  the  appellant  company  by  

respondent no.2  are relatable to Sections 504, 500, 503 and 34  

IPC and submits that offence under Section 503 is punishable  

under Section 506 IPC.

Mr. Luthra, the learned senior counsel for the appellants -  

Company  further  submitted  that  accepting  the  allegations  on  

their face value, no cognizable case is made out against the  

appellants.   In support of his contention, Mr. Luthra  referred  

to the well known decision of this Court in the case of State of  

Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp.(1)  

SCC 335 and has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph  

102 and sub paras 2,4 and 7 thereof at page nos. 378 and 379 of  

the report.  

     By referring to those paragraphs, Mr. Luthra submits where  

the First Information Report and the accompanying materials do  

not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence justifying  

an investigation by police officer under Section  156(1) of the  

Code, no investigation of the case can be carried on without the  

order of the Magistrate in view of the mandate of Section 155  

(2)of the Code.   

   We set out from  Bhajan Lal those sub paragraphs herein  

below:

102.  xxx      xxx       xxx

(1)   xxx      xxx       xxx

4

(2) Where the allegations in the first  information  report and  other materials,  if  any,  accompanying  the  FIR  do  not  disclose a cognizable offence, justifying  an investigation by police officers under  Section 156(1) of the Code except under  an  order  of  a  Magistrate  within  the  purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.  

(3)   xxx        xxx         xxx

(4)   Where, the allegations in the FIR  do  not  constitute  a  cognizable  offence  but  constitute  only   a  non-cognizable  offence, no investigation is permitted by  a police officer without an order of a  Magistrate as contemplated under Section  155(2)of the Code.

(5)  xxx      xxx           xxx (6)  xxx     xxx           xxx

(7)   Where  a  criminal  proceeding  is  manifestly attended with mala fide and/or  where  the  proceeding  is  maliciously  instituted  with  an  ulterior  motive  for  wreaking  vengeance  on  the  accused  and  with a view to spite him due to private  and personal grudge".          

Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  relying  on  those  

paragraphs submitted that the order passed by the Magistrate on  

21.6.2010 on the complaint in this case which does not disclose  

commission of a cognizable offence is not legally sustainable  

order.  The order reads thus:

"21.06.2010 This  complaint  is  forwarded  to  Chikadpally  Police  Station  for  Investigation  and  report  under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

   Sd/-    Shri B. Rajashekar.    Ld. IXth ACMM"

5

 Mr. Rai learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  

respondent no.2 submitted that in a case like this, this Court  

is  not  called  upon  to  go  into  all  the  factual  allegations  

levelled against his client by the appellant.  Mr. Rai further  

submitted  labelling  of  the  complaint  or  the   FIR  is  not  

decisive. As the respondent No.2 has made a complaint, it is  

open to the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190 of  

the Code and direct investigation.

After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view  

that  the  contentions  of  Mr.  Luthra  are  correct  in  view  of  

Section 155(2) of the Code as explained in Bhajan Lal.  We are  

of the opinion that the statutory safeguard which is given under  

Section 155 (2) of the Code must be strictly followed, since  

they are conceived in public interest and as a guarantee against  

frivolous  and  vexatious  investigation.   The  order  of  the  

Magistrate dated 21.06.2010 does not disclose that he has taken  

cognizance.  However power under Section 156(3) can be exercised  

by the Magistrate even before he takes cognizance provided the  

complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence.  Since  

in the instant case the complaint does not do so, the order of  

Magistrate  stated  above  cannot  be  sustained  in  law  and  is  

accordingly quashed.  

   We  do  not  make  any  observation  on  the  merits  of  the  

allegations made in the complaint. However, we make it clear  

that the complaint which has been filed against  respondent no.2

6

may be treated in accordance with law.

With these directions, this appeal is disposed of.  

.................J     (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

            ...................J  

                                       (GYAN SUDHA MISRA) New Delhi; Dated: October 19, 2011