Summary
The High Court's revisional order setting aside the Magistrate's acceptance of a police closure report and directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC was quashed. The complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust over an advance for supply of manganese ore was found to be a civil dispute arising from breach of an MOU for transfer of a mining lease, filed after an unexplained delay of about six years and on a false premise; the Magistrate's order accepting the closure report and rejecting the protest petition was restored.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, in revision, was justified in setting aside the Magistrate's order accepting the closure report and rejecting the protest petition, and in directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
- Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 IPC or merely gave a criminal colour to a civil dispute arising from breach of contract.
- Whether an allegation of forgery of a Government order, raised for the first time in a protest petition after the closure report, could justify further investigation.
Provisions considered
- Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Further investigation after a final report. The High Court directed further investigation on the strength of a new and conjectural allegation of forgery raised only in the protest petition, without assigning a justifiable and sustainable reason; directing further investigation into a frivolous complaint filed after an unexplained delay of six years was held to be an abuse of the process of law. (¶¶ 3, 25, 26, 27)
- Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The investigating officer's closure report concluded that the dispute was of a civil nature arising from breach of the MOU and that no offence was made out; the Court found these conclusions unimpeachable and restored the Magistrate's order accepting the report. (¶¶ 13, 15, 17, 24, 26)
- Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The complaint filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was forwarded to the police under this provision, leading to registration of the FIR for offences under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 IPC. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Sections 120B, 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860The admitted allegations did not disclose the necessary ingredients of any offence, let alone a cognizable one; the complainant had twisted the facts to give the colour of a criminal offence to a dispute that was purely civil in nature and arose from breach of an agreement. (¶¶ 12, 24, 27)
Held
- The alleged acts of fraud and misappropriation arising from the breach of the MOU took place in 2007-2008, yet the complaint was filed in 2014 with no plausible explanation for the delay of almost six years; this gross and unexplained delay was a glaring feature weighing against the prosecution. (¶¶ 19, 22, 27)
- The complainant's case that the amount paid was an advance towards purchase of manganese ore was in stark contrast to the written MOU, under which the complainant was to pay Rs 3,20,00,000 and the appellant was then to incorporate his proprietary concern as a company and transfer its shares. The appellant did incorporate the company and transferred 28% of its shares, while the complainant admittedly failed to perform its obligations, leaving Rs 2,70,00,000 outstanding. The allegation of an order for ore was false and concocted, unsupported by any purchase order; the complainant had twisted and manipulated the facts to give a civil dispute the colour of a criminal offence, and the investigating officer's conclusions in the final report were unimpeachable. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The allegation, raised for the first time in the protest petition after the investigation was complete, that the Government order approving transfer of the mining lease was forged, was unsupported by even prima facie evidence and was a flight of fancy to continue a lame prosecution and pressure the appellant; the omission of such a basic fact from the belated complaint rendered the entire case in the FIR doubtful. The High Court was unduly swayed by this new and conjectural stance and directed further investigation without a sustainable reason. (¶¶ 16, 24, 25)
- The belated FIR and the complainant's attempt to paint an entirely new picture contrary to the MOU were sufficient reasons for the High Court to refrain from exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The admitted allegations did not disclose the ingredients of any offence, and directing further investigation into such a frivolous complaint was a sheer abuse of the process of law; the Magistrate's order accepting the closure report and rejecting the protest petition was unassailable and was restored. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
- The connected appeal (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 5030 of 2024), involving identical facts and the same impugned High Court judgment, was allowed for the same reasons, with the Magistrate's order accepting the negative final report restored.
Result
Both appeals allowed. High Court order dated 17.10.2023 in CRR No. 425 of 2016 quashed and set aside; order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta dated 05.10.2015 accepting the closure report and rejecting the protest petition restored; pending applications disposed of.