G H NAGARAJAIAH SETTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that crops up for consideration in this petition is: "Whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction to direct the investigating agency to reinvestigate the matter"? This question arises in the back drop a public complaint. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bangalore, lodged a complaint against the accused/petitioners that, sanction to run a school by them had been obtained by creating fake documents and forgery. The said complaint was referred to the COD for investigation. The COD filed a 'B' Report. The learned Magistrate issued notice of this 'B' Report to the complainant for which the complainant showed no interest. The third party filed an affidavit explaining certain circumstances bringing it to the notice of the Courts certain other facts. However, the accused persons committed fraud on the Government. The learned Magistrate acting upon these information supplied by the third party through his affidavit, directed the COD to reinvestigate the matter. Aggrieved by the said order of the Magistrate, the accused have challenged the same seeking to quash the said proceedings solely on the ground that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct for investigation.

(2.) Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the petition contentions submitted that, the learned Magistrate has erred in directing the COD to investigate the matter and relied on the few decisions of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117, has elaborately discussed on this question laid down the law as follows:

(3.) The Apex Court have reiterated this proposition of law in M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another, AIR 1989 SC 885. In the light of this proposition of law, the further grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, the learned Magistrate has referred the complaint for further investigation acting upon the affidavit filed by a third party.