SRINAGAR, Dec 7: The High Court has held that the trial court under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code has no power to issue direction to police to investigate a matter in particular manner or to seize a particular property.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey said the Section 202 of CrPC does not empower the Magistrate to issue a direction to the Police to investigate a matter in a particular manner or to seize a particular property.
Hearing two petitions invoking the inherent power of the Court under Section 561-A CrPC wherein the petitioners were seeking to set aside order of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, partly allowing a Criminal Revision and setting aside the orders Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (3rd Addl. Munsiff), Srinagar, to the extent directions had been issued thereby for seizure of vehicle bearing Registration no.JK04B-7444 and seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by the respondent herein and pending before the Judicial Magistrate (Sub-Registrar), Srinagar, under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
“In light of the above, I do not see any ground available to the petitioner, or made out by him, to invoke the inherent power of the Court under Section 561-A CrPC either to quash the proceedings in the complaint filed by respondent under Section 138 and 142 of NI Act or to interfere with the order impugned in the petition”, Justice Magrey said.
He said, the point, in context of the order impugned as passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, was and is, whether the Judicial Magistrate had the power or jurisdiction to issue a direction to the Police to seize the vehicle post issuance of process by him after considering the investigation report of the Police?
“The law is settled that the object of the provisions of Section 202 CrPC is only to enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether process should be issued or not and to remove from his mind any hesitation that he may have felt upon the perusal of the complaint and the consideration of the complainant’s evidence on oath”, read the judgment.
Court further clarified that what the Magistrate has to see is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations of the complainant as stated in sub-Section (1) of Section 202 CrPC, the object of the enquiry is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint, and the Magistrate making the enquiry has to do this only with reference to the intrinsic quality of the statements made before him at the enquiry which would naturally mean the complaint itself, the statement on oath made by the complainant and the statements made before him by persons examined at the instance of the complainant.
Court dismissed the petitions challenging trial court order and directed the Trial Magistrates concerned to proceed ahead with the trial of the complaints in question and decide the same in accordance with law.
Court said that petition under 561A will not and has no mechanism to determine the veracity of the allegations leveled by the petitioner against the respondent. The situation might have been different if the petitioner had proved the allegations leveled by him in his criminal complaint against the respondent.