M. MAHENDAR KUMARversusM. MANI & ORS.

                    (2015] 2 S.C.R. 1023


                  M. MAHENDAR KUMAR                              A

                              v.
                      M. MANI & ORS.

              (Criminal Appeal No.461 of 2015)                   8

                      MARCH 17, 2015

     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
              SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]                            c
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Inherent
  jurisdiction of High Court - Petition uls.482 by de facto
  complainant-respondent no. 1 - Transfer of investigation of
  a case from DSP, Crime Branch to CBCID, Chennai sought
· - Petition allowed by the High Court - On appeal, held:        D
  Appellant and other accused persons were not made parties
  to the case - Petition was allowed by simply believing the
  statement made by respondent no. 1 which created the
  impression that the matter was still pending before the        E
  police authority when in fact chargesheet had already been
  submitted long back and accused persons had been
  summoned - Perusal of the petition reveals that respondent
  no. 1 omitted to disclose that his prayer u/s. 173(8) Cr.PC.
  for further investigation by CBCID was fumed down by the       F
  Magistrate; and the said order was upheld by the High Court
  and this· Court - Single Judge of the High Court was not
  properly assisted in the matter - Order was passed on
  account of non-application of mind to such relevant fact -
  Thus, since the order was passed on account of                 G
  suppression of material facts and under a wrong impression
  that case was still pending before the police authorities at
  the investigation stage, order passed by the High Court set

                             1023                                H
1024            SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A     aside.
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
       Appeal No. 461 of 2015.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2014 of the
   High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No. 707 of
 B 2014.
       V. Krishnamurthy, T. Harish Kumar, M. Vivekanandan, forthe
       Appellant.
       S. Deva Kumar, G. Ananda Selvam, G. Rajendran, Sakthi
 C     Ranjan V., Rajavel, R. V. Kameshwaran, M. Yogesh Kanna,
       S. Janani, A. Santha Kumaran for the Respondents.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for
       the parties. Leave granted.
 D        2. The appellant is an accused in a complaint case
     bearing Crime No.14 7 of 2009 pending in the file of learned
     Judicial Magistrate at Gingee, Tamil Nadu. He is aggrieved
     by impugned order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the High
     Court of Judicature at Madras in a petition under Section 482
     of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.')
 E   bearing Crl.O.P.No.707 of 2014 preferred by the de facto
     complainant, respondent no.1 herein, whereby the Crime
     No.147 of 2009 has been treated as pending before the
     Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Tamil
     Nadu and as such transferred to the file of CBCID, Chennai
 F   for investigation.
          3. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal may be
     noted in brief as follows. The first respondent, Mr. Mani, an
     assistant of Thiru Kadambapathy Thiru Madam/Mutt lodged
     a complaint with the Sathyamangalam Police Station alleging
     that unknown persons had stolen jewels of the Mutt. His
G    complaint led to F.l.R. No.147 of 2009 registered against
     unknown persons for offences under Sections 457, 380 and
     394 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The de facto complainant/
     respondent no.1 subsequent!~' moved the High Court of
     Judicature at Madras for transfer of investigation to CBCID,
H    Chennai but such petition bearing Crl.O.P.No.21269 of 2010
      M. MAHENDAR KUMAR v. M. MANI & ORS.                    1025
             [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

was rejected by the High Court on 22.02.2011. In the             A
meantime, the investigation had been transferred to
Inspector of Police, Valathi Police Station and again it was
transferred by the DIG, Villupuram to Deputy Superintendent
of Police, District Crime Branch Villupuram who completed
the investigation and filed a chargesheet on 26. 01.2012         B
against 11 persons. The appellant is accused no:9 in
P.R.C.No.4 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Gingee, Tamil Nadu. According to appellant, the allegation
against him is of being a receiver of stolen goods attracting
Section 412 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate issued            C
process in said P.R.C. No.4 of 2012 on 02.03.2012. The
de facto ·complainant, respondent no.1 moved a petition
under Section 173(8) of Cr. P. C. before the learned
Magistrate bearing Crl.M.P.No.3602 of 2012 and prayed for        D
allowing further investigation into the case by CBCID. The
said petition was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate
on 29.06.2012 by holding that the de facto complainant was
not competent to maintain such an application for further
investigation. Against that order respondent no.1 preferred      E
Crl. Revision Petition bearing Crl.R.C. No.1283 of 2012
before the High Court of Madras which came to be
dismissed on 07 .11.2012. Respondent no.1 then preferred
S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2156 of 2013 against the order of the High
Court dated 07.11.2012 and the same was also dismissed           F
on 08.04.2013:
    4. Respondent no.1 made allegations against the first
Investigating Officer of the case Mr. N. Gajendran, Inspector
of Police, Sathyamangalam Police Station before the G
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram that he had
committed malpractice and illegality during investigation of
Crime No.147 of 2009. Dissatisfied by inaction on the part
of Magistrate, respondent no.1 filed Crl.0.P.No.18904 of
2012 before Madras High Court in which order was passed H
1026      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A on 13.08.2012 and the High Court directed the
   Superintendent of Police, Villupuram to register a case
   against the former Investigating Officer named above. This
   led to registering of FIR in Sathyamangalam Police Station
   on 18.09.2012 as Crime No.180 of 2012 under Sections
 B 196, 206, 218, 219, 221and471 of the IPC against Mr. N.
   Gajendran. Respondent no.1 filed another Crl.O.P.No.28305
   of 2012 before the High Court of Madras which was allowed
   on 10.12.2012 and the High Court directed the CBCID,
   Chennai to investigate that case.
 c
        5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances respondent
   no.1, after about 8 months of dismissal of Special Leave
   Petition on 08.04.2013, in the month of January 2014 filed
   the case at hand being Crl.O.P.No.707 of 2014 before the
 D High Court again seeking transfer of investigation of Crime
   No.147 of 2009 from DSP, Crime Branch, to CBCID,
   Chennai so that such investigation may go along with
   investigation in Crime No.180 of 2012 pending against the
   former Investigating Officer.
 E
       6. The appellant or other accused persons were not
  made parties to this case and it was allowed by the
  impugned order dated 10.01.2014 by simply believing the
  statement made by respondent no.1 which created the
F impression that the matter was still pending before the
  police authority when in fact chargesheet had already been
  submitted long back and the accused persons had also
  been summoned. A copy of the Crl.0.P.No.707 of 2014 is
  available on record and a perusal thereof reveals that
G respondent no.1 omitted to disclose that his prayer under
  Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. for further investigation by
  CBCID had been turned down by the concerned
  Magistsrate; that order was affirmed by the High Court and
H his S.L.P. against the same had also been dismissed by
      M. MAHENDAR KUMAR v. M. MANI & ORS.                  1027
             [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

this Court.                                                  A

     7. In.the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned
order has been obtained by suppression of relevant facts
and the High Court also erred in allowing such an B.
application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. because in absence
of the accused persons nobody pointed out that there was
specific provision available under Section 173(8) of the
Cr.P.C. for ordering further investigation and hence the High
Court ought not to have exercised extraordinary inherent C
jurisdiction in view of specific provision in the Cr.P.C. being
available for the purpose.

     8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 submitted that the impugned order would      o
advance the cause of justice and therefore requires no
interference by this Court. However, he could not meet the
allegation and the submission that respondent no. 1 did not
disclose material facts which could have revealed that his
earlier application for further investigation by CBCID had E
been rejected at all stages and the S.L.P. had also been
dismissed by this Court. The impugned order further
discloses that the learned Single Judge was not properly
assisted in the matter and he could not notice that Crir:ne
No.147 of 2009 was no longer pending in the file of Dy.S.P. F
of Police or any other police authority because investigation
had been completed and chargesheet was submitted long
back. It was clearly on account of non application of mind
to such relevant fact that the impugned order came to be
passed at the initial stage of admission without noticing any G
counter affidavit or reply and/or its absence.

     9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are
constrained to and hereby set aside the impugned order as
it has been passed on account of suppression of material H
1028         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2015) 2 S.C.R.


 A     facts and under a wrong impression that Crime No.147 of
       2009 was still pending before the police authorities at the
       investigation stage. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed ..

       Nidhi Jain                                    Appeal allowed.