HARYANA LAND RECLAMATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-1990-5-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on May 04,1990

Haryana Land Reclamation And Development Corporation Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Haryana And Another Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

K. D. THANKKAPPAN NAIR VS. B. A. PRASANNA KUMARI [LAWS(KER)-1995-6-32] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. INDIA CEMENTS LTD. [LAWS(KER)-1995-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
DEPURI RAMADEVI VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2006-4-125] [REFERRED TO]
KHAGESH KUMAR GOEL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1997-8-58] [REFERRED]
BABU @ HASAN MODI BABU VS. STATE BY HALASURGATE POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2014-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
R K SAINI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1996-1-141] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. POPULAR AUTOMOBILES [LAWS(KER)-1990-12-39] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA PILLAI THANKAPPAN NAIR VS. BHARATHI AMMA PRASANNA KUMARI AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-1995-6-39] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KANUPRIYA VS. ASHUTOSH AGRAWAL [LAWS(UTN)-2017-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
MRS. LEELA NARVEKAR, DAUGHTER OF LIMO NARVEKAR VS. MR. KESHAV NARVEKAR @ CORTEZ, S/O MARY NARVEKAR @ CORTEZ [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-435] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJENDRA KUMAR MISRA VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. GALLI JANARDHAN REDDY [LAWS(KAR)-2019-10-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat is or is not an "interlocutory order" within the meaning of S. 397 (2 of the code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The appellant which is a State government undertaking registered under the companies Act, 1956 is working under the administrative control of haryana government in Agricultural Department. The secretary of the appellant-Company filed a criminal complaint before the court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Sonepat against respondent 2 under S. 409, 467, 468 and 466-A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the second accused committed criminal breach of trust, misappropriated the stocks entrusted to him and defalcated the account books and stocks registers, etc. It seems that the complaint was referred to the police for 'investigation under S. 156 (3 of the Code. On the final report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Sonepat city, the learned Magistrate passed the following order on 11/04/1988.
"In view of the report of the police, accused is ordered to be discharged. File be ordered to be consigned to the record room. "feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant took up the matter before the High court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Miscellaneous no. 5492-M of 1988 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 478 of 1989. The high court by its impugned order dated 10/02/1989 dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petitions on the ground that the order of the chief Judicial Magistrate discharging the accused was an "interlocutory order" and that the petition under S. 482 of the Cr PC for quashing the order of the Magistrate is barred. Hence this appeal.

(3.)The High court in its impugned order has placed reliance on the observation of this court made in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of police. The question in the said case was whether in a case where first information report is lodged and after completion of investigation initiated on the basis of the first information report, the police submits a report that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate can accept the report and drop the proceedings without issuing notice to the first informant or to the injured or in case the incident has resulted in death, to the relatives of the deceased. Besides examining the above question, this court did not examine the intendment of S. 397 (2 of the Code.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.