HC Ought to Have Construed True Import of Order: SC Restores Protest Petition Proceedings In Forgery Case

The Apex Court also directed the Magistrate to indicate the consequence of the said docket order.

The Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh said, “In the circumstances, we find that the High Court ought to have construed the true import of what the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had observed in the docket order dated 21.07.2014.”

Advocate Prakhar Sharma represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu represented the Respondent.

The Appellant approached the Apex Court after being aggrieved by what had been observed by the Telangana High Court in its order passed in a Criminal Petition as a consequence of which, the docket order of the Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside.

The appellant’s Counsel brought it to the Court’s notice that on the filing of a report by the concerned Sub-Inspector, the appellant herein filed a protest petition. By then, the Sworn Statement and expert opinion had also been recorded. Taking note of the same, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad by the impugned docket order accepted the protest petition filed by the complainant/appellant herein and consequently directed the Investigating Agency to reconsider the case and to ascertain the true facts basing on the sworn statement of the Defacto Complainant and by verifying the Expert Opinion and to submit report as early as possible.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the private respondents preferred Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court. Their plea for quashing of the very complaint filed by the appellant was not accepted. However, the High Court found that the proceedings before the Trial Court were liable to be set-aside as the Trial Court could not have directed for a reinvestigation of the matter; that no such powers are envisaged for the Trial Court to order for reinvestigation in the matter.

The controversy in this case revolved around the directions issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, in view of the fact that the expression used in the docket order was “the investigating agency is directed to reconsider the case and to ascertain the true facts.”

It was the case of the appellant as well as the respondent-State that it was not necessary for the High Court to have set aside the docket order thereby allowing the criminal petition filed by the private respondents especially when the High Court had also found that there was a prima facie case against the private respondents herein and the allegations leveled against them could not have been simply brushed aside or quashed.

The Bench, at the outset, observed, “Considering the submissions advanced at the bar we find that the choice of expression by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate may not have been appropriate. However, the meaning of the said expression could be discerned as a direction for a continuation of the investigation, having regard to the material on record.”

As per the Bench , the High Court ought to have construed the true import of what the Magistrate had observed in the docket order. The Bench thus set aside the observations the High Court made at paragraphs “14” and “15” and held, “Consequently, the direction issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the docket order dated 21.07.2014 ought to be construed in accordance with the true legal import.”

Allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “Hence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is now directed to indicate the consequence of the said order and to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law by following the procedure envisaged in law on the protest petition, filed by the appellant herein.”

Cause Title: P.N.D. Prasad v. Billa Satish & Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 964)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Prakhar Sharma, Anil Gaur, Piya Uppal, AOR Anu Gupta

Respondents:Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, AOR Amit K. Nain, AOR Pai Amit, Advocates Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Tathagata Dutta, Kushal Dube, Deepak Sharma, Abhinav Thakur, Kumar Vaibhav, S.Uday Bhanu, AOR Devina Sehgal

Click here to read/download Order