PRABHAKAR PANDURANG SANZGIRI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund, Bombay, on 5th November 1984 directing charge to be framed under section 506 (Part II) read with section 114 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner-accused No.1.

(2.) Mahabaleshwar Govind Kalgutkar, P.5.1, Bhand up Police-Station, filed first information report against the petitioner- accused No. 1 alleging that the accused No. 1 in the workers meeting at the gate of Manik Metal and Manik Engineering Company at Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Bhandup, Bombay, on 22nd September 1981 at about 1 p.m. addressed the workers and during the address he said that PSI. Avhad should not try to teach the ABC to the workers, otherwise they would teach him a lesson with lathis. On the basis of the said report, Criminal Revision No 443 of 1981 was registered at the Bhandup Police-Station and after necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 506 (Part II) read with section 114 Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner accused No. 1 contends that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was wrong in framing charge against the petitioner. According to him, the offence under section 506 Indian Penal Code being noncognizable, the police could not take cognizance of and investigate into the offence without obtaining necessary order from the Metropolitan Magistrate. According to him, the investigation without obtaining the necessary order from the Metropolitan Magistrate, the filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge against the petitioner are all bad in law and, therefore, all the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 858/P of 1982 are required to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor is unable to show how the police investigated into the offence without obtaining necessary order from the Metropolitan Magistrate, the offence being non-cognizable. The investigation into the non-cognizable offence by a police-officer without order of the Metropolitan Magistrate is contrary to the provisions of section 155(2) Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the investigation, filing of chargesheet and framing of charge are all vitiated and as such the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Even otherwise on the material on record, no case for framing charge under section 506 (Part II) Indian Penal Code is made out.