Page 1

       REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   684            OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7293 of 2009)

Madhao & Anr.               .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.                           .... Respondent(s)

WITH       

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    685           OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7324 of 2009)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    686           OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7332 of 2009)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   687            OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7693 of 2009)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

1

Page 2

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.               OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7293 of 2009)

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and  

order  dated  02.09.2009  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature  at  Bombay,  Nagpur  Bench,  Nagpur  in  Criminal  

Application  No.  3112  of  2006  whereby  the  High  Court  

dismissed  the  appeal  filed  by  the  appellants  herein  while  

confirming the order dated 27.09.2005, passed by the Court  

of  Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class,  Ghatanji  in  Criminal  

Complaint Case No. 92 of 2005.  

3)   Brief facts:

(a) The  Government  of  Maharashtra  has  published  a  

Government  Resolution  on  02.06.2004  wherein  it  was  

informed  to  the  public  at  large  that  the  percentage  of  

educated  un-employed  amongst  the  Scheduled  Caste  and  

neo-Buddhist are on the higher side and those who are below  

poverty line are required to work under different schemes  

and  their  standard  of  living  is  consequently  adversely  

affected.   For  the  said  reason,  it  was  resolved  that  land  

should be made available to such people to create a source  

2

Page 3

of income for them.  For the said purpose, a scheme was  

framed  by  name  Karamveer  Dadasaheb  Gaikwad  

Sabalikaran  and  Swabhiman  Yojana  Samiti.   As  per  the  

Scheme, a Committee was constituted in each district and  

the  Collector  of  the  district  was  to  act  as  Head  of  the  

Committee.   The  said  Scheme  was  made  applicable  with  

effect from 01.04.2004.  As per the Scheme, land was to be  

purchased by the Government and was to be made available  

to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and neo-

Buddhist who were below poverty line.  

(b)  Madhao  Rukhmaji  Vaidya-Appellant  No.1  herein  while  

working  as  Special  District  Welfare  Officer  and  Member  

Secretary  of  the  Samiti  under  the  Scheme,  did  several  

transactions  under  the  supervision  of  District  Collector,  

Yavatmal.  Sau. Sadhana Mahukar Yavalkar-appellant No.2, a  

Warden at  Government  Hostel,  Ghatanji,  District  Yavatmal  

was  working  as  Assistant  of  appellant  No.1  in  the  said  

Scheme.  She was authorized by appellant No.1 to get the  

Sale  deeds  executed  in  favour  of  the  Government  of  

Maharashtra under the Scheme.   

3

Page 4

(c) On  04.04.2005,  the  State  Government  purchased  

agricultural land situated at village Koli-Bujruq.  The said land  

was jointly owned by eight persons.  The appellants, after  

perusing the revenue records of the said land purchased it  

from  the  Vendors  by  getting  executed  a  registered  sale  

deed.  At the time of execution of sale deed, on 07.05.2005,  

an  affidavit  was  sworn  by  the  Vendors  that  they  were  

residents  of  Mouza  Koli-Buzruq,  Tahsil  Ghatanji,  District  

Yavatmal  and were  the  owners of Gut  No. 43  of  the  said  

property.

(d) On 04.06.2005, A newspaper by name “Tarun Bharat”  

published  an  article  in  which  it  was  alleged  that  the  

petitioners  have  purchased  agricultural  land  showing  

Ramesh as alive while he was dead.  It was further alleged  

that one Ramesh Shikaji Rathod had signed the sale deed as  

Ramesh Shika Jadhav.  

(e) On coming to know about the said publication, appellant  

No.  1  on  29.06.2005  made  an  enquiry  and  recorded  the  

statements of the said eight Executants and on 02.07.2005  

4

Page 5

lodged a report in Ghatanji P.S. against them for an offence  

of impersonation and cheating.   

(f) On 07.07.2005, the officials of Ghatanji P.S. registered  

offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 468 and 34 of  

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) for the acts of  

fraud, criminal breach of trust and impersonation against the  

said accused persons vide Crime No. 88 of 2005.   

(g) On 09.09.2005, one Rajnikant Deluram Borele, claiming  

himself to be a Social Worker, filed a Criminal Complaint in  

the  court  of  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class,  Ghatanji,  

which was registered as Case No. 92 of 2005 against  the  

appellants-herein, Sub-Registrar and few more persons.  In  

the complaint it was alleged that the accused had purchased  

the land from a dead person, namely, Ramesh Shikaji Jadhav,  

while  the  appellants  were  acting  in  their  official  capacity  

under the said Scheme.   

(h) Learned  Magistrate,  by  order  dated  27.09.2005,  

directed the Police to investigate the matter under Section  

156(3)  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  Code,  1973  (in  

5

Page 6

short the “Code”) and to submit a detailed report within one  

month.   

(i) On  15.09.2006,  the  appellants  (Madhao  Rukhmaji  

Vaidya  and  Sau.  Saudhana  Mahukar  Yavalkar)  filed  an  

application  under  Section  482  of  Cr.P.C.  being  Criminal  

Application No. 3112 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court  

seeking  quashing  of  the  prosecution  of  the  applicants  

(appellants herein) in Crime No. 92 of 2005.  

(j) On 02.09.2009, after hearing the parties, the High Court  

dismissed  the  Criminal  Application  preferred  by  the  

appellants-herein by holding that the procedure adopted and  

the power exercised by the Magistrate ordering investigation  

under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is just and proper.  

(k) Being aggrieved, appellants herein filed SLP No. 7293 of  

2009.  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.               OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7324 of 2009)

4) On  27.09.2006,  one  of  the  accused,  namely,  Akash  

Dattatraya Marawar (A-1), business man, also filed Criminal  

6

Page 7

Application No. 3242 of 2006 before the High Court seeking  

quashing of the prosecution in Crime No. 92 of 2005.  The  

High  Court,  by  order  dated  02.09.2009,  dismissed  the  

application.  Being aggrieved, he filed special leave petition  

No. 7324 of 2009.  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.               OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7332 of 2009)

5) On 24.10.2006, another  accused, namely, Omprakash  

Hiralal Jaiswal, Sub-Registrar, also filed Criminal Application  

No. 3526 of 2006 before the High Court seeking quashing of  

the prosecution in Crime No. 92 of 2005.  The High Court, by  

order  dated 02.09.2009,  dismissed the  application.   Being  

aggrieved, he filed special leave petition No. 7332 of 2009.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.               OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7693 of 2009)

6) On  29.10.2006,  one  of  the  accused,  namely,  Aslam  

Shakil  Julphikar  Khan,  employee  of  Akash  Dattatraya  

Marawar (A-1), business man, also filed Criminal Application  

No. 3240 of 2006 before the High Court seeking quashing of  

the prosecution in Crime No. 92 of 2005.  The High Court, by  

7

Page 8

order  dated 02.09.2009,  dismissed the  application.   Being  

aggrieved, he filed special leave petition No 7693 of 2009.

7) Heard Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the  

appellant  and  Mr.  Shankar  Chillarge,  learned  Additional  

Advocate General for the respondent-State of Maharashtra.

8) The only point for consideration in all these appeals is  

whether the learned Magistrate is justified in directing the  

Police to investigate and submit a detailed report within one  

month under Section 156(3) of the Code.

9) The order of the learned Magistrate shows that before  

passing the direction for investigation under Section 156(3),  

heard  the  counsel  for  the  complainant,  perused  the  

allegations made against the accused in the complaint and  

documents  annexed  therewith.   It  also  shows that  taking  

note of the fact that some of the accused are public officers  

and after observing that it needs proper investigation prior to  

the  issue  of  process  against  the  accused  under  Section  

156(3) of the Code directed the P.S.O. Ghatanji to investigate  

the matter and submit a detailed report within one month.    

8

Page 9

10) Chapter  XIV  of  the  Code  speaks  about  conditions  

requisite for initiation of proceedings.  Section 190 deals with  

cognizance  of  offences  by  Magistrates.   In  terms  of  sub-

section (1) subject to the provisions of the said Chapter, any  

Magistrate of first class, and any Magistrate of the second  

class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section  

(2), may take cognizance of any offence – (a) upon receiving  

a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a  

police  report  of  such  facts;  (c)  upon  information  received  

from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own  

knowledge, that such offence has been committed.  

11) Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code enables any  

Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an  

investigation in terms of sub-section (1) of that section.  

12) In CREF Finance Ltd. vs. Shree Shanthi Homes (P)  

Ltd. and Another, (2005) 7 SCC 467, while considering the  

power of a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence, this  

Court held:  

9

Page 10

“10. …. Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when the  Magistrate peruses the complaint with a view to ascertain  whether the commission of any offence is disclosed. The  issuance  of  process  is  at  a  later  stage  when  after  considering  the  material  placed  before  it,  the  court  decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a  prima  facie  case  is  made  out.  It  is  possible  that  a  complaint  may be filed against  several  persons,  but  the  Magistrate may choose to issue process only against some  of the accused. It may also be that after taking cognizance  and examining  the  complainant  on oath,  the  court  may  come  to  the  conclusion  that  no  case  is  made  out  for  issuance of process and it may reject the complaint. It may  also be that  having considered the complaint,  the court  may consider it appropriate to send the complaint to the  police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code  of Criminal Procedure….”

It  is  clear  that  any  judicial  magistrate  before  taking  

cognizance  of  the  offence  can  order  investigation  under  

Section  156(3)  of  the  Code.   If  he  does  so,  he  is  not  to  

examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking  

cognizance of any offence therein.   

13) When a magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound  

to  take  cognizance  if  the  facts  alleged  in  the  complaint  

disclose the commission of an offence.  The magistrate has  

discretion in the matter.  If on a reading of the complaint, he  

finds  that  the  allegations  therein  disclose  a  cognizable  

offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for  

1

Page 11

investigation  under  Section  156(3)  will  be  conducive  to  

justice and save the valuable time of the magistrate from  

being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily  

the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in  

adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance  

of  the  offence  itself.   As  said  earlier,  in  the  case  of  a  

complaint regarding the commission of cognizable offence,  

the  power  under  Section  156(3)  can  be  invoked  by  the  

Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under  

Section  190(1)(a).   However,  if  he  once  takes  such  

cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in  

Chapter XV, he is not competent to revert back to the pre-

cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3).   

14) Where a Magistrate chooses to take cognizance he can  

adopt any of the following alternatives:

(a)  He can peruse the complaint  and if  satisfied that  

there  are  sufficient  grounds  for  proceeding  he  can  

straightaway issue process to the accused but before he  

does  so  he  must  comply  with  the  requirements  of  

1

Page 12

Section 200 and record the evidence of the complainant  

or his witnesses.

(b)  The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process  

and direct an enquiry by himself.

(c)  The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process  

and  direct  an  enquiry  by  any  other  person  or  an  

investigation by the police.

15) In case the Magistrate after considering the statement  

of the complainant and the witnesses or as a result of the  

investigation and the enquiry ordered is  not  satisfied that  

there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can dismiss  

the complaint.

16) Where a Magistrate orders investigation by the police  

before taking cognizance under Section 156(3) of the Code  

and receives the report thereupon he can act on the report  

and  discharge  the  accused  or  straightaway  issue  process  

against the accused or apply his mind to the complaint filed  

before him and take action under Section 190 of the Code.

1

Page 13

17) The  above  principles  have  been  reiterated  in  

Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others vs. V.  

Narayana Reddy and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 252 and Tula  

Ram and Others vs. Kishore Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 459  

18) Keeping the above principles, if we test the same with  

the direction issued by the magistrate for investigation under  

Section 156(3) of the Code and facts of these cases, we are  

satisfied that the magistrate has not exceeded his power nor  

violated  any of  the  provisions contained in  the  Code.   As  

observed  earlier,  the  magistrate  need  not  order  any  

investigation if  he pre-supposes to take cognizance of the  

offence and once he takes cognizance of the offence, he has  

to follow the procedure provided in Chapter XV of the Code.  

It is also settled position that any judicial magistrate before  

taking  cognizance  of  the  offence  can  order  investigation  

under Section 156(3) of the Code.   

19) As rightly observed by the High Court, the magistrate  

before  taking  cognizance  of  the  offence  can  order  

investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, we are of the  

1

Page 14

view that the procedure adopted and the power exercised by  

the magistrate in this case is acceptable and in accordance  

with the scheme of the Code.  We are also satisfied that the  

High Court rightly refused to exercise its power under Section  

482 of the Code.  

20) In the light of the above discussion and conclusion, we  

find no merit in all  these appeals, consequently, the same  

are dismissed.     

   ………….…………………………J.   

               (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                   (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)   

NEW DELHI; MAY 03, 2013.

1