Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Recently, the Madras high court made certain important observations about civil cases being treated as criminal cases by ‘people of vested interests’. While making the observations, the court has warned that before an investigation is ordered under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, magistrates are obliged to investigate whether the claims made constitute any cognizable criminal offense (CrPC). The high court bench comprising Justice Murali Shankar in an order passed last month observed that, In cases of civil nature and in cases where the police don't entertain the complaint that has been made, people of vested interest and with other motives move to the criminal court and lodge a petition under Section 156(3) CrPC, make some claims that contain cognizable offenses and seek an order or instruction from the police to file the FIR and for investigation. The judge emphasized that in such cases: It is the responsibility of the magistrates to see whether the allegations in the petition can be considered as cognizable offenses and whether any materials justify the same. More significantly, a mere accusation of the commission of an offense without any relevant material does not warrant the order under Section 156(3) CrPC for investigation.
The case before the High Court involved allegations of trespass, verbal abuse, hurt and criminal intimidation. A report made in 2016 to the police for the registration of a criminal case was unsuccessful, causing the complainant, by means of a petition under Section 156(3) CrPC, to approach a judicial magistrate in Rajapalayam. However, the judge rejected the appeal in 2017, ruling that the case is of a civil nature, arising from a land rights dispute. The High Court upheld the magistrate's conclusion after the petitioner appealed against the dismissal ordered by the magistrate. The High Court observed that the petitioner had refused to include adequate information concerning the alleged incident, including the timing of the alleged violation of the property at this particular issue.
The court finally held that :
“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 the cognizable offense is not made out and no prima facie case is shown”
86540
103860
630
114
59824