R S GOWRI SANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in M.P.No.1162 of 2003 dated 6.5.2003 on the file of the Court of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai now pending in A.F.I.R.No.640 of 2003 on the file of the respondent and quash the same on grounds such as that the learned Magistrate ought not to have forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar Range, T.Nagar, Chennai, since such a direction is beyond the jurisdiction; that the learned Magistrate has been conferred upon the powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. only to direct as "Officer in-charge of the police station" to investigate any cognizable offence over which the Magistrate has jurisdiction; that the learned Magistrate has filed to see that the defacto complainant has no right to demand an order to direct the learned Magistrate to forward the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. when the Crime Branch, Egmore is functioning in the adjacent premises and such filing of the complaint with a specific direction does amount to abuse of process of Court; that in fact the A.F.I.R.640/2003 in relation to Crime No.480/2003 is pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai does go to show that the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint even to exercise the power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.; that the learned Magistrate has exercised his powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in a mechanical manner by assumption of excessive jurisdiction and the said order made in M.P.1162/2003 dated 6.5.2003 is liable to be set aside; that the complaint filed by the defacto complainant is bereft of any of the ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and the said complaint ought not to ave been forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. when the offences are alleged to have been committed beyond the jurisdiction of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side.

(3.) During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate has been conferred upon the powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. only to direct as "Officer in-charge of the police station" to investigate any cognizable offence over which the Magistrate has jurisdiction and he ought not to have forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar Range, T.Nagar, Chennai, since such a direction is beyond the jurisdiction. To substantiate his contention the learned counsel would cite a judgment reported in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and another (2001)3 SUPREME COURT CASES 333) wherein it has been held: