Persons with vested interests may pass off civil cases as criminal complaints, Magistrates should be careful: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently made pertinent observations about civil cases being passed off as criminal cases by "persons with vested interests" (P Pitchiyappan v. Karpagam and ors)..In doing so, the Court has cautioned that magistrates are duty-bound to examine whether the allegations made constitute any cognizable criminal offence before ordering investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..In an order passed earlier this month, Justice K Murali Shankar was prompted to observe,."In cases of civil nature and in the cases, where the police do not entertain the complaint, the persons with vested interest and with some oblique motive, rushes to the criminal Court and files a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, making some allegations to constitute the cognizable offence and wants an order or direction to the Police for registering the FIR and for investigation and more petitions under Section 156(3) are being filed in all the Magistrate Courts and are attempting to achieve the desired results through the orders for registration of FIR and investigation.".In such cases, the judge proceeded to emphasise that,"... the Magistrates are duty-bound to see as to whether the averments in the petition would constitute cognizable offences and the same is supported by any materials. More importantly, mere allegation about the commission of the offence without any material in support thereof would not justify the order for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.".The Court reiterated that if a petition is filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC, the Magistrate has to apply his mind to discern whether the allegations prima facie make out a criminal case. The magistrate should not mechanically pass order directing the Police to investigate the case, it was highlighted. .Further, if the allegations constitute a cognizable offence, then the magistrate is duty-bound to forward the complaint to the police for the registration of an FIR and further investigation, the Court recalled. However, Justice Shankar added, "It is pertinent to mention that it is not mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to send the complaint to the concerned Police to register and investigate the case, if the said petition does not reveal any prima facie case to proceed further.".Section 156 (3) CrPC empowers a magistrate to order the police to investigate a criminal case where a cognizable offence is made out, including cases where the complainant is not successful in getting the police to register an FIR in the matter. .Section 156 (3), CrPC reads, "Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 (dealing with cognizance of offences by magistrates) may order such an investigation as above- mentioned (in cognizable cases).".The case before the High Court involved allegations of trespass, verbal abuse, hurt and criminal intimidation. A complaint made in 2016 to the police for the registration of a criminal case had been unsuccessful, prompting the petitioner to approach a judicial magistrate at Rajapalayam by way of a petition under Section 156 (3) CrPC. However, in 2017, the magistrate dismissed the application, holding that the complaint is of a civil nature, stemming from a dispute over property rights. .Upon the petitioner challenging the magistrate's dismissal, the High Court affirmed the magistrate's conclusion. .The High Court noted that the petitioner had not provided sufficient details about the alleged incident, including the timing of an alleged trespass into the disputed property. The High Court proceeded to dismiss the case, observing, "Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, it is evident that there existed civil dispute between the parties....On perusal of the petitioner's complaint, this Court is of the view that the commission of cognizable offence is not made out and no prima facie case is shown.". Justice Shankar added,"No doubt, the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed a very brief and short order, but, the same cannot be considered as a reason or ground to impugn the order...".Read the Order: