Supreme Court of India
P.N.D. Prasad vs Billa Satish on 5 December, 2024
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 signaturesPage 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 wasjustified 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 havebeen 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