Skip to content


Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru and Others Vs. Syed Layakl Ali, Authorised Representative (CEO) M/s. Quintessential Designs India Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCrl.R.C. Nos. 66 & 90 of 2016 & Crl.MP Nos. 439, 6756, 659 & 6791 of 2016
Judge
AppellantPuma Sports India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru and Others
RespondentSyed Layakl Ali, Authorised Representative (CEO) M/s. Quintessential Designs India Pvt. Ltd.
Excerpt:
.....of cr.p.c. to set aside the order dated 14.12.2015 made in mp.no.6795 of 2015 on the file of the chief metropolitan magistrate, egmore @ allikulam, chennai.) 1. both the criminal revisions are directed against the order passed by the learned chief metropolitan magistrate, egmore @ allikulam, chennai made in mp.no.6795 of 2016 dated 14.12.2015. 2. both the criminal revisions are preferred against the order passed by the learned chief metropolitan magistrate, egmore @ allikulam, chennai, on the complaint given by the respondent/complainant in mp.no.6795 of 2016 filed under section 156(3) r/w.190 cr.pc. 3. the order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned chief metropolitan magistrate, egmore, chennai which reads as follows :- "forwarded to concern police for registered the case and.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 14.12.2015 made in MP.No.6795 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai.)

1. Both the Criminal revisions are directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai made in MP.No.6795 of 2016 dated 14.12.2015.

2. Both the criminal revisions are preferred against the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai, on the complaint given by the respondent/complainant in MP.No.6795 of 2016 filed under Section 156(3) r/w.190 Cr.PC.

3. The order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai which reads as follows :-

"Forwarded to concern police for registered the case and necessary action and report by 18.01.2016."

Aggrieved against the said impugned order, the present revision petitions are preferred by the accused/A1 to 3.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai without appreciating the complaint and analysing the facts and without application of mind passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Ramdev Food Products Private Limited V. State of Gujarat - (2015) 6 SCC 439. 5.The main grounds of criminal revisions in paragraphs D and E filed by the revision petitioners are extracted hereunder :- D. The Judicial application of mind by the Magistrate is a sine-quo-non for marking any orders in a proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.PC in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramdev Food Products Private Limited V. State of Gujarat, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 439, while dealing with the exercise of power under Section 156(3) Cr.PC by the learned Magistrate, a three judge bench has held that :-

".... the direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone instance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction issued. Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine existence of sufficient ground to proceed."

E. It is not well settled position in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr Versus Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., reported in1998 Cri.L.J. 1, wherein the Hon'ble Court held as follows :-

"Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the Criminal Law set in motion. The Court has further observed that the Magistrate has to examine the nature of the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant in bringing charge home to the accused. it is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording the preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to be complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

These observations are made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the summoning of accused in the Criminal case, meaning thereby issuance of order under Section 156(3) is even more serious than summoning the accused.

6. There are civil dispute pending between the parties, complaint is referred only to civil dispute between the parties, but the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, without considering the above aspect passed the impugned order, referring the matter to police for registering a case. The present complaint preferred by the respondent against the revision petitioners, the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, is lack of bonafide and the learned counsel prays to set aside the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and to allow the revision filed by the petitioners.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent would mainly contend that the trial Court after considering the facts of the entire complaint passed the impugned order, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and prays to dismiss the revision petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly rely upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported are as follows :-

(i) Anil Kumar V. M.K.Aiyappa - (2013) 10 SCC 705 - "The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed (2008) 5 SCC 668 examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which in out view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation."

(ii) Ramdev Food Products Private Limited V. State of Gujarat, reported in(2015) 6 SCC 439, while dealing with the exercise of power under Section 156(3) Cr.PC by the learned Magistrate, a three judge bench has held that :-

".... the direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone instance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction issued. Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine existence of sufficient ground to proceed."

(iii) Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another V. Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in1998 Cri.L.J. 1, wherein the Hon'ble Court held as follows :-

"Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the Criminal Law set in motion. The Court has further observed that the Magistrate has to examine the nature of the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant in bringing charge home to the accused. it is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording the preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to be complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

(iv) In the case reported in State of Himachal Pradesh V. Gian Chand reported in(2001) 6 SCC 71 wherein it is held that :-

".... if the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution."

(v) In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others V. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others - AIR 1988 SC 709 has categorically held that :-

"... the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. it is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

9.Admittedly, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind before forwarding the complaint to the police to register the case for necessary action, which is in violation of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 - Lalitha Kumari V. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others. Forwarding a complaint by the Court to register a case restrains the police from following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. The trial Court without perusing the private complaint given by the complainant, simply given a direction to the police to register the case is not at all maintainable in the eye of law and it is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

10. In the result, both the criminal revisions are allowed, by setting aside the order dated 14.12.2015 made in MP.No.6795 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //