Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.600 OF 2007

RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED …

APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.

1.This appeal by special leave has been preferred

against the Judgment and Order dated 17

th

February, 2006 of

the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal

Application No.1821 of 2005.

2.The High Court declined to interfere with the Order

dated 16

th

August, 2005, of the Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Sanand on a complaint filed by the appellant against

fourteen accused for alleged commission of offences under

Sections 409, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with Section

Page 2 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code directing the Police

Sub-Inspector, Sanand, to give a report to the Court within

thirty days under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) instead of directing

investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, as sought by

the appellant.

3.The case of the appellant-complainant in complaint

filed by it before the Magistrate is that it is running business

of food products and had permitted M/s. New Ramdev

Masala Factory, wherein accused No.1 Mr. Jasvantbhai

Somabhai Patel was one of the partners, to use the

trademark “Ramdev” for seven years under agreement

dated 4

th

June, 1990. However, M/s. New Ramdev Masala

Factory was closed on 30

th

May, 1994. Accused No.1

executed forged partnership documents with the help of

other accused and thereby committed the alleged offences.

4.The appellant sought direction for investigation under

Section 156(3) of the Code. However, the Magistrate

instead of directing investigation as prayed, thought it fit to

conduct further inquiry under Section 202 and sought report

of the Police Sub Inspector within thirty days. Grievance of

Page 2 of 38

Page 3 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

the appellant before the High Court was that in view of the

allegation that documents had been forged with a view to

usurp the trademark, which documents were in possession

of the accused and were required to be seized, investigation

ought to have been ordered under Section 156(3) instead of

conducting further inquiry under Section 202. Thus, there

was non application of mind by the Magistrate. It is also

submitted in the alternative, that even in the course of

investigation for giving report under Section 202, police is

entitled to arrest the accused as arrest is part of

‘investigation’ but the police failed to effect the arrest.

5.The High Court did not accept the stand of the

appellant. It was observed that the appellant had

approached the High Court against the Order of the

Magistrate after delay of four months from the date of the

Order which itself disentitled it to a direction under Section

156(3). It was further observed that the Magistrate had

given reasons for declining to direct investigation under

Section 156(3) and the said Order did not call for any

interference. The reasons given by the Magistrate, inter

alia, are that the Police had refused to register a case.

Page 3 of 38

Page 4 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

There was civil litigation which had gone up to the Supreme

Court and thus the case was of civil nature. The fact

whether the documents in question were forged or not could

be ascertained in civil proceedings by getting the opinion of

the hand writing expert. Scope of inquiry under Section 202

was limited to find out whether a case was made out for

issue of process. Suppression of material fact of pendency

of civil dispute by the complainant also justified the order of

the Magistrate to proceed under Section 202 instead of

Section 156(3). It was further observed that a Magistrate is

not justified in ordering police investigation in mechanical

manner as laid down by the Gujarat High Court in

Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel vs. Dhirubhai

Shambhubhai Kakadiya

1

.

6.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. When

the matter came up for hearing on 11

th

April, 2007, this

Court framed the question as follows:

“The question involved in the instant Special

Leave Petition is as to the extent of power

that may be exercised by a police officer while

making an inquiry under Section 202(1) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure particularly,

whether he has power to arrest in course of

the inquiry entrusted to him by the

Magistrate. Reliance is placed on Sub-Section

1

1997 (2) GLR 1572

Page 4 of 38

Page 5 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

3 of Section 202 to contend that the power to

arrest without warrant cannot be exercised by

a person not being a police officer. Impliedly

it is contended that so far as the police officer

is concerned that constraint is not there.”

However, in the light of submissions made during the

hearing, we frame following questions for consideration:

“(i) Whether discretion of the Magistrate to

call for a report under Section 202 instead of

directing investigation 156(3) is controlled by

any defined parameters?

(ii) Whether in the course of investigation in

pursuance of a direction under Section 202,

the Police Officer is entitled to arrest an

accused?

(iii) Whether in the present case, the

Magistrate erred in seeking report under

Section 202 instead of directing investigation

under Section 156(3)?”

7.Contention on behalf of the appellant is that the

Magistrate and the High Court erred in declining to order

investigation under Section 156(3) which was necessary in

view of the allegation of forgery of documents and stamp

papers by the accused to create back dated partnership

deeds by forging signatures of a dead person. Such

documents being in custody of the accused could not be

otherwise produced except on arrest in the course of

Page 5 of 38

Page 6 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

investigation and in accordance with Section 27 of the

Evidence Act. Option of proceeding under Section 202, as

against Section 156(3), has to be exercised only when

evidence has already been collected and what remained to

be decided was whether there was sufficient ground to

proceed. Mere fact that the appellant first approached the

Police and the police did not register First Information Report

could not be taken against it nor the dispute being of civil

nature was a bar to criminal proceedings, if a case was

made out.

8.Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that

direction under Section 156(3) for investigation was all the

more necessary in view of interpretation given by the

Gujarat High Court in Sankalchand Valjibhai Patel vs.

J.P. Chavda and Ors.

2

that under Section 202, the Police

Officer had no power of arrest. In such a situation calling for

report under Section 202 will not serve the purpose of

finding out the truth. It was also submitted that the said

view was erroneous and contrary view in other judgments

was sound and needs to be approved by this Court.

Referring to Section 202 (3), it was pointed out that a person

2

(1979) 1 GLR 17

Page 6 of 38

Page 7 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

other than police officer could not exercise power of arrest

but police officer was not so debarred. Moreover, arrest was

integral part of investigation.

9.Jasvantbhai Somabhai Patel, the alleged accused has

filed an application for impleadment stating that dispute

between the parties is of civil nature. His contention is that

the appellant is attempting to abuse the process of law to

arm-twist the accused by having him arrested by the police.

In the circumstances, no interference was called for by this

Court. This application has been opposed by the appellant

on the ground that during the stage of inquiry under Section

202 of the Code, the accused has no right to be heard as

laid down by this Court in Adalat Prasad vs. Rupal Jindal

& Others

3

. Having regard to the legal issue involved, we

have heard learned counsel for the accused on the

questions involved.

10.As already observed, the contention of the appellant is

that when there is allegation of forgery and discovery of

documents is necessary, a Magistrate must order

investigation under Section 156(3) instead of proceeding

3

(2004) 7 SCC 338

Page 7 of 38

Page 8 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

under Section 202. Alternatively, direction to the Police to

investigate and give a report under Section 202 implies

arrest and discovery which under Section 157 of the Code

are integral parts of investigation. Contrary view of Gujarat

High Court in Sankalchand Valjibhai Patel (supra) and

other High Courts was erroneous while the view taken by

other High Courts to which reference will be made in later

part of this Judgment is correct. Section 202 (3) expressly

provides that if a person, other than police officer is required

to conduct investigation under Section 202 (1), he is not

authorized to arrest without warrant which implied that

there is no such restriction on power of arrest available with

a police officer.

11.On the other hand, contention on behalf of the alleged

accused is that both the powers of the Magistrate - (i)

directing investigation under Section 156(3); and (ii)

direction under Section 202 to seek a report from police

after investigation to enable the Magistrate to decide

whether to proceed further and issue process are

qualitatively different and are in different chapters of the

Code. Thus, as per scheme of the Code, power of police in

Page 8 of 38

Page 9 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

pursuance of directions under the said two provisions is not

the same.

The Magistrate has discretion either to direct

registration of a case under Section 156(3) or to conduct

inquiry himself as the situation may warrant. This discretion

is to be exercised by the Magistrate in his wisdom and

having regard to the nature of material available. Direction

under Section 156(3) to register a criminal case and to

investigate is to be exercised where the Magistrate is

satisfied that prima facie a cognizable offence has been

committed. On the contrary, where he thinks it necessary to

conduct further inquiry before deciding whether he should

proceed further in the matter, matter has to be dealt with

under Section 202. Mere allegation of forgery is not enough

to require the Magistrate to pass the order under Section

156(3).

12.It is further submitted that in the present case, the civil

proceedings are pending between the parties where the

question of genuineness or otherwise of the partnership

deed is an issue. The process of criminal law cannot be

used when a dispute is primarily of civil nature.

Page 9 of 38

Page 10 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

Simultaneously initiation of criminal proceedings may be

permitted where an offence is shown to have been

committed. Thus, the Magistrate was entitled to satisfy

himself as to whether any cognizable offence had been

committed before proceeding further. The Magistrate was

not satisfied from the material available that any cognizable

offence had been committed and he rightly decided to

conduct further enquiry under Section 202. Having regard

to the limited nature of inquiry under Section 202 which

option had been rightly chosen by the Magistrate, direction

to the police to investigate and give a report was limited by

the very purpose for which the limited inquiry was to be

held, as against procedure for investigation in cases not

covered under Section 202 of the Code. The purpose was to

enable the Magistrate to decide whether there was ground

to proceed further. The Magistrate having taken cognizance

of the offence and the police having not registered a

criminal case nor the Magistrate having directed registration

of criminal case, procedure and power of the Police in the

matter are different and in such a situation police did not

have the power to arrest, without permission of the

Page 10 of

Page 11 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

Magistrate as was the view of the Gujarat and other High

Courts.

13.We may first deal with the question as to whether the

Magistrate ought to have proceeded under Section 156(3) or

was justified in proceeding under Section 202(1) and what

are the parameters for exercise of power under the two

provisions.

14.The two provisions are in two different chapters of the

Code, though common expression ‘investigation’ is used in

both the provisions. Normal rule is to understand the same

expression in two provisions of an enactment in same sense

unless the context otherwise requires. Heading of Chapter

XII is “Information to the Police and their Powers to

Investigate” and that of Chapter XV is “Complaints to

Magistrate”. Heading of Chapter XIV is “Conditions

Requisite for Initiation of Proceedings”. The two provisions

i.e. Sections 156 and 202 in Chapters XII and XV respectively

are as follows :

“156. Police officer's power to

investigate cognizable case.

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station

may, without the order of a Magistrate,

investigate any cognizable case which a Court

having jurisdiction over the local area within

Page 11 of

Page 12 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

the limits of such station would have power to

inquire into or try under the provisions of

Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any

such case shall at any stage be called in

question on the ground that the case was one

which such officer was not empowered under

this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section

190 may order such an investigation as

above- mentioned.

202. Postponement of issue of process.-

(1) Any Magistrate , on receipt of a complaint

of an offence of which he is authorized to take

cognizance or which has been made over to

him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit,

[and shall in a case where the accused is

residing at a place beyond the area in which

he exercises his jurisdiction] postpone the

issue of process against the accused, and

either inquire into the case himself or direct

an investigation to be made by a police officer

or by such other person as he thinks fit, for

the purpose of deciding whether or not there

is sufficient ground for proceeding:

Provided that no such direction for

investigation shall be made, -

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate

that the offence complained of is triable

exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or

(b) where the complaint has not been

made by a Court, unless the complainant

and the witnesses present (if any) have

been examined on oath under section

200.

(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the

Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence

of witnesses on oath:

Page 12 of

Page 13 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate

that the offence complained of is triable

exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall

call upon the complainant to produce all his

witnesses and examine them on oath.

(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is

made by a person not being a police officer,

he shall have for that investigation all the

powers conferred by this Code on an officer in

charge of a police station except the power to

arrest without warrant.”

15.Cognizance is taken by a Magistrate under Section

190 (in Chapter XIV) either on “receiving a complaint”, on

“a police report” or “information received” from any person

other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge.

Chapter XV deals exclusively with complaints to

Magistrates. Reference to Sections, 202, in the said

Chapter, shows that it provides for “postponement of issue

of process” which is mandatory if accused resides beyond

the Magistrate’s jurisdiction (with which situation this case

does not concern) and discretionary in other cases in which

event an enquiry can be conducted by the Magistrate or

investigation can be directed to be made by a police officer

or such other person as may be thought fit “for the

purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient

ground for proceeding” . We are skipping the proviso as

Page 13 of

Page 14 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

it does not concern the question under discussion. Clause

(3) provides that if investigation is by a person other than a

police officer, he shall have all the powers of an officer

incharge of a police station except the power to arrest.

16.Chapter XII, dealing with the information to the police

and their powers to investigate, provides for entering

information relating to a ‘cognizable offence’ in a book to be

kept by the officer incharge of a police station (Section 154)

and such entry is called “FIR”. If from the information, the

officer incharge of the police station has reason to suspect

commission of an offence which he is empowered to

investigate subject to compliance of other requirements, he

shall proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and

circumstances and, if necessary, to take measure, for the

discovery and arrest of the offender (Section 157(1).

17.In Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P.

4

, this Court dealt

with the questions :

“30.1. (i) Whether the immediate non-

registration of FIR leads to scope for

manipulation by the police which affects the

right of the victim/complainant to have a

complaint immediately investigated upon

allegations being made; and

4

(2014) 2 SCC 1

Page 14 of

Page 15 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

30.2. (ii) Whether in cases where the

complaint/information does not clearly

disclose the commission of a cognizable

offence but the FIR is compulsorily registered

then does it infringe the rights of an accused.”

18.These questions were answered as follows :

“49. Consequently, the condition that is sine

qua non for recording an FIR under Section

154 of the Code is that there must be

information and that information must

disclose a cognizable offence. If any

information disclosing a cognizable offence is

led before an officer in charge of the police

station satisfying the requirement of Section

154(1), the said police officer has no other

option except to enter the substance thereof

in the prescribed form, that is to say, to

register a case on the basis of such

information. The provision of Section 154 of

the Code is mandatory and the officer

concerned is duty-bound to register the case

on the basis of information disclosing a

cognizable offence. Thus, the plain words of

Section 154(1) of the Code have to be given

their literal meaning.

“Shall”

72. It is thus unequivocally clear that

registration of FIR is mandatory and also that

it is to be recorded in the FIR book by giving a

unique annual number to each FIR to enable

strict tracking of each and every registered

FIR by the superior police officers as well as

by the competent court to which copies of

each FIR are required to be sent.

“Information”

73. The legislature has consciously used the

expression “information” in Section 154(1) of

the Code as against the expression used in

Sections 41(1)(a)

*

and (g) where the

expression used for arresting a person without

warrant is “reasonable complaint” or “credible

Page 15 of

Page 16 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

information”. The expression under Section

154(1) of the Code is not qualified by the

prefix “reasonable” or “credible”. The non-

qualification of the word “information” in

Section 154(1) unlike in Sections 41(1)( a)

*

and (g) of the Code is for the reason that the

police officer should not refuse to record any

information relating to the commission of a

cognizable offence on the ground that he is

not satisfied with the reasonableness or

credibility of the information. In other words,

reasonableness or credibility of the said

information is not a condition precedent for

the registration of a case.

94. Principles of democracy and liberty

demand a regular and efficient check on

police powers. One way of keeping check on

authorities with such powers is by

documenting every action of theirs.

Accordingly, under the Code, actions of the

police, etc. are provided to be written and

documented. For example, in case of arrest

under Section 41(1)(b) of the Code, the arrest

memo along with the grounds has to be in

writing mandatorily; under Section 55 of the

Code, if an officer is deputed to make an

arrest, then the superior officer has to write

down and record the offence, etc. for which

the person is to be arrested; under Section 91

of the Code, a written order has to be passed

by the officer concerned to seek documents;

under Section 160 of the Code, a written

notice has to be issued to the witness so that

he can be called for recording of his/her

statement, seizure memo/panchnama has to

be drawn for every article seized, etc.

107. While registration of FIR is mandatory,

arrest of the accused immediately on

registration of FIR is not at all mandatory. In

fact, registration of FIR and arrest of an

accused person are two entirely different

concepts under the law, and there are several

safeguards available against arrest. Moreover,

it is also pertinent to mention that an accused

person also has a right to apply for

Page 16 of

Page 17 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

“anticipatory bail” under the provisions of

Section 438 of the Code if the conditions

mentioned therein are satisfied. Thus, in

appropriate cases, he can avoid the arrest

under that provision by obtaining an order

from the court.

108. It is also relevant to note that in Joginder

Kumar v. State of U.P.(1994) 4 SCC 260], this

Court has held that arrest cannot be made by

the police in a routine manner. Some

important observations are reproduced as

under: (SCC pp. 267-68, para 20)

“20. … No arrest can be made in a routine

manner on a mere allegation of commission of

an offence made against a person. It would be

prudent for a police officer in the interest of

protection of the constitutional rights of a

citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no

arrest should be made without a reasonable

satisfaction reached after some investigation

as to the genuineness and bona fides of a

complaint and a reasonable belief both as to

the person’s complicity and even so as to the

need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his

liberty is a serious matter. The

recommendations of the Police Commission

merely reflect the constitutional concomitants

of the fundamental right to personal liberty

and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest

merely on the suspicion of complicity in an

offence. There must be some reasonable

justification in the opinion of the officer

effecting the arrest that such arrest is

necessary and justified. Except in heinous

offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police

officer issues notice to person to attend the

Station House and not to leave the Station

without permission would do.”

111. Besides, the Code gives power to the

police to close a matter both before and after

investigation. A police officer can foreclose an

FIR before an investigation under Section 157

of the Code, if it appears to him that there is

no sufficient ground to investigate the same.

Page 17 of

Page 18 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

The section itself states that a police officer

can start investigation when he has “reason to

suspect the commission of an offence ”.

Therefore, the requirements of launching an

investigation under Section 157 of the Code

are higher than the requirement under

Section 154 of the Code. The police officer can

also, in a given case, investigate the matter

and then file a final report under Section 173

of the Code seeking closure of the matter.

Therefore, the police is not liable to launch an

investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily

registered on receiving information relating to

commission of a cognizable offence.

114. It is true that a delicate balance has to

be maintained between the interest of the

society and protecting the liberty of an

individual. As already discussed above, there

are already sufficient safeguards provided in

the Code which duly protect the liberty of an

individual in case of registration of false FIR.

At the same time, Section 154 was drafted

keeping in mind the interest of the victim and

the society. Therefore, we are of the cogent

view that mandatory registration of FIRs under

Section 154 of the Code will not be in

contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution

as purported by various counsel.

115. Although, we, in unequivocal terms, hold

that Section 154 of the Code postulates the

mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all

cognizable offences, yet, there may be

instances where preliminary inquiry may be

required owing to the change in genesis and

novelty of crimes with the passage of time.

One such instance is in the case of allegations

relating to medical negligence on the part of

doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to

prosecute a medical professional only on the

basis of the allegations in the complaint.

120.6. As to what type and in which cases

preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will

depend on the facts and circumstances of

each case. The category of cases in which

Page 18 of

Page 19 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

preliminary inquiry may be made are as

under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal

delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution,

for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting

the matter without satisfactorily explaining

the reasons for delay.”

19.Thus, this Court has laid down that while prompt

registration of FIR is mandatory, checks and balances on

power of police are equally important. Power of arrest or of

investigation is not mechanical. It requires application of

mind in the manner provided. Existence of power and its

exercise are different. Delicate balance had to be

maintained between the interest of society and liberty of an

individual. Commercial offences have been put in the

category of cases where FIR may not be warranted without

enquiry.

20.It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction

by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3)

cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar vs. M.K.

Aiyappa

5

, it was observed :

5

(2013) 10 SCC 705

Page 19 of

Page 20 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

“11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came

up for consideration before this Court in

several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed

case [(2008) 5 SCC 668] examined the

requirement of the application of mind by the

Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under

Section 156(3) and held that where

jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in

terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC,

the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in

such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate

cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3)

against a public servant without a valid

sanction order. The application of mind by the

Magistrate should be reflected in the order.

The mere statement that he has gone through

the complaint, documents and heard the

complainant, as such, as reflected in the

order, will not be sufficient. After going

through the complaint, documents and

hearing the complainant, what weighed with

the Magistrate to order investigation under

Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in

the order, though a detailed expression of his

views is neither required nor warranted. We

have already extracted the order passed by

the learned Special Judge which, in our view,

has stated no reasons for ordering

investigation.”

The above observations apply to category of cases

mentioned in Para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari (supra).

21.On the other hand, power under Section 202 is of

different nature. Report sought under the said provision has

limited purpose of deciding “whether or not there is

sufficient ground for proceeding”. If this be the object, the

procedure under Section 157 or Section 173 is not intended

to be followed. Section 157 requires sending of report by

Page 20 of

Page 21 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

the police that the police officer suspected commission of

offence from information received by the police and

thereafter the police is required to proceed to the spot,

investigate the facts and take measures for discovery and

arrest. Thereafter, the police has to record statements and

report on which the Magistrate may proceed under Section

190. This procedure is applicable when the police receives

information of a cognizable offence, registers a case and

forms the requisite opinion and not every case registered by

the police.

22.Thus, we answer the first question by holding that the

direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after

application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate

does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to

postpone instance of process and finds a case made out to

proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is

issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of

information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is

considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation,

such a direction is issued. Cases where Magistrate takes

cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases

Page 21 of

Page 22 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

where the Magistrate has yet to determine “existence of

sufficient ground to proceed”. Category of cases falling

under Para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari (supra) may fall under

Section 202. Subject to these broad guidelines available

from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the

Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case.

23.We now proceed to deal with the second question of

power of police to arrest in the course of investigation under

Section 202 with a view to give its report to the Magistrate

to enable him to decide whether a case to proceed further

existed. Careful examination of scheme of the Code reveals

that in such situation power of arrest is not available with

the police. Contention based on language of Section 202(3)

cannot be accepted.

24.The maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusion alterious’

(express mention of one thing excludes others) has been

called a valuable servant but a dangerous master. In Mary

Angel and others vs. State of T.N.

6

, this Court observed

as follows on the scope of the maxim:

“19. Further, for the rule of interpretation on

the basis of the maxim “expressio unius est

exclusio alterius”, it has been considered in

6

(1999) 5 SCC 209

Page 22 of

Page 23 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

the decision rendered by the Queen’s Bench

in the case of Dean v. Wiesengrund [(1955) 2

QB 120 : (1955) 2 All ER 432]. The Court

considered the said maxim and held that after

all it is no more than an aid to construction

and has little, if any, weight where it is

possible to account for the “inclusio unius” on

grounds other than intention to effect the

“exclusio alterius”. Thereafter, the Court

referred to the following passage from the

case of Colquhoun v. Brooks

[(1887) 19 QBD

400 : 57 LT 448] QBD at 406 wherein the

Court called for its approval—

“… ‘The maxim “ expressio unius est

exclusio alterius” has been pressed upon us. I

agree with what is said in the court below by

Wills, J. about this maxim. It is often a

valuable servant, but a dangerous master to

follow in the construction of statutes or

documents. The exclusio is often the result of

inadvertence or accident, and the maxim

ought not to be applied, when its application,

having regard to the subject-matter to which

it is to be applied, leads to inconsistency or

injustice.’ In my opinion, the application of the

maxim here would lead to inconsistency and

injustice, and would make Section 14(1) of the

Act of 1920 uncertain and capricious in its

operation.”

20. The aforesaid maxim was referred to by

this Court in the case of CCE v. National

Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. [(1972) 2 SCC 560].

The Court in that case considered the

question whether there was or was not an

implied power to hold an enquiry in the

circumstances of the case in view of the

provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise

Act read with Rule 10-A of the Central Excise

Rules and referred to the aforesaid passage

“the maxim is often a valuable servant, but a

dangerous master …” and held that the rule is

subservient to the basic principle that courts

must endeavour to ascertain the legislative

intent and purpose, and then adopt a rule of

Page 23 of

Page 24 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

construction which effectuates rather than

one that may defeat these. Moreover, the rule

of prohibition by necessary implication could

be applied only where a specified procedure is

laid down for the performance of a duty. In the

case of Parbhani Transport Coop. Society Ltd.

v. Regional Transport Authority

[AIR 1960 SC

801 : (1960) 3 SCR 177] this Court observed

that the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio

alterius” is a maxim for ascertaining the

intention of the legislature and where the

statutory language is plain and the meaning

clear, there is no scope for applying. Further,

in Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh

[AIR

1957 SC 444 : 1957 SCR 370, 389] SCR at p.

389 the Court referred to the following

passage from Maxwell on Interpretation of

Statutes, 10th Edn., pp. 316-317:

“Provisions sometimes found in statutes,

enacting imperfectly or for particular cases

only that which was already and more widely

the law, have occasionally furnished ground

for the contention that an intention to alter

the general law was to be inferred from the

partial or limited enactment, resting on the

maxim expressio unius, exclusio alterius. But

that maxim is inapplicable in such cases. The

only inference which a court can draw from

such superfluous provisions (which generally

find a place in Acts to meet unfounded

objections and idle doubts), is that the

legislature was either ignorant or unmindful of

the real state of the law, or that it acted under

the influence of excessive caution.”

We are of the view that the maxim does not apply for

interpretation of Section 202 (3) for the reasons that follow.

In our view, the correct interpretation of the provision is that

merely negating the power of arrest to a person other than

police officer does not mean that police could exercise such

Page 24 of

Page 25 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

power. The emphasis in the provision is to empower such

person to exercise other powers of incharge of a police

station than the power of arrest. As regards the power of

police to arrest, there are express provisions dealing with

the same and power of police to arrest is not derived from or

controlled by Section 202 (3). The said power is available

under Section 41 or under a warrant. The power remains

available subject to conditions for exercise thereof. For

example it can be exercised if cognizable offence is

committed in the presence of a police officer (Section 41(1)

(a). Under Section 202, since the Magistrate is in seisin of

the matter and has yet to decide “whether or not there is

sufficient ground for proceeding”, there is no occasion for

formation of opinion by the police about credibility of

available information necessary to exercise power of arrest

as the only authority of the police is to give report to

Magistrate to enable him to decide whether there is

sufficient ground to proceed. Power of arrest is not to be

exercised mechanically. In M.C. Abraham vs. State of

Maharashtra

7

, it was observed :

7

(2003) 2 SCC 649

Page 25 of

Page 26 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

“14.……In the first place, arrest of an

accused is a part of the investigation and is

within the discretion of the investigating

officer. Section 41 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure provides for arrest by a police

officer without an order from a Magistrate and

without a warrant. The section gives discretion

to the police officer who may, without an

order from a Magistrate and even without a

warrant, arrest any person in the situations

enumerated in that section. It is open to him,

in the course of investigation, to arrest any

person who has been concerned with any

cognizable offence or against whom

reasonable complaint has been made or

credible information has been received, or a

reasonable suspicion exists of his having been

so concerned. Obviously, he is not expected to

act in a mechanical manner and in all cases to

arrest the accused as soon as the report is

lodged. In appropriate cases, after some

investigation, the investigating officer may

make up his mind as to whether it is

necessary to arrest the accused person. At

that stage the court has no role to play. Since

the power is discretionary, a police officer is

not always bound to arrest an accused even if

the allegation against him is of having

committed a cognizable offence. Since an

arrest is in the nature of an encroachment on

the liberty of the subject and does affect the

reputation and status of the citizen, the power

has to be cautiously exercised. It depends

inter alia upon the nature of the offence

alleged and the type of persons who are

accused of having committed the cognizable

offence. Obviously, the power has to be

exercised with caution and circumspection.”

25.Nature of cases dealt with under Section 202 are cases

where material available is not clear to proceed further. The

Magistrate is in seisin of the matter having taken the

Page 26 of

Page 27 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

cognizance. He has to decide whether there is ground to

proceed further. If at such premature stage power of arrest

is exercised by police, it will be contradiction in terms. As

regards denial of opportunity to record confession under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it has to be kept in mind that

admissibility of such confession cannot guide exercise of

power of arrest. Source of power of arrest is governed by

other provisions and not by Section 27. It is only if arrest is

otherwise permissible that provision of Section 27 may be

invoked. If exercise of power of arrest is not otherwise

warranted, admissibility of confession under Section 27

cannot facilitate such exercise. We, thus, hold that the

police of its own cannot exercise its power of arrest in the

course of making its report in pursuance of direction under

Section 202.

26.We may now proceed to deal with the conflict in

decisions which has been pointed out to us. Bombay,

Gujarat and Delhi High Courts in Sankalchand Valjibhai

Patel (supra), Emperor vs. Nurmahomed

Rajmahomed

8

, Mahendrasinh Shanabhai Chauhan and

8

(1929) 31 BOMLR 84

Page 27 of

Page 28 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.

9

and Harsh Khurana

vs. Union of India

10

have held that in the course of

investigation directed under Section 202 (1) the police

cannot exercise the power of arrest. Reasoning is by and

large similar. Cases covered by Section 202 are such where

Magistrate is yet to decide whether the material was

sufficient to proceed. Till formation of such opinion, arrest

will be incongruous. We may only refer to the observations

of M.P. Thakker, J. (as he then was) in Sankalchand

Valjibhai Patel (supra) :

“2. The question that has surfaced in the back

drop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances

is: when upon receipt of a complaint of an

offence a Magistrate instead of issuing

process postpones the issue of process

against the accused and direct? a police

officer to make an investigation for the

purpose of deciding whether or not there is

sufficient ground for proceeding, can the

police officer in charge of the investigation on

his own, place the accused under arrest?

Section 202 (1) in so far as material reads as

under:

202. (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt

of a complaint of an offence of which

he is authorised to take cognizance

or which has been made over to him

under Section 192, may, if he thinks

fit, postpone the issue of process

against the accused, and either

inquire into the case himself or

9

(2009) 2 GLR 1647

10

121 (2005) DLT 301 (DB)

Page 28 of

Page 29 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

direct an investigation to be made

by a police officer or by such other

person as he thinks fit, for the

purpose of deciding whether or not

there is sufficient ground for

proceeding.”

27.On the other hand in Emperor vs. Bikha Moti

11

and

Asha Das and others vs. The State

12

, Sind and Assam

High Courts respectively have taken a contrary view by

holding that when direction for investigation issued under

Section 202 (1) is issued, the police is to investigate

precisely in the same manner and arrest the accused in

precisely the same manner as they would have done if they

had recorded First Information Report.

28.We may only refer to the observations of Devis, CJ in

Bikha Moti (supra) as follows:

“Now S. 202(1) refers not only to an enquiry

but also to an investigation : and Section

202(2) confers upon a person other than a

Magistrate or a police officer all powers

conferred upon a police officer in charge of a

police station except the power of arrest

without warrant. Surely this implies that a

police officer to whom a complaint has been

referred for investigation has the power to

arrest without warrant under S.54, Criminal

P.C. and all other powers which may be

exercised by a police officer in the course of

an investigation. To us, the scheme of the

section appears to be that when a complaint

11

AIR (1938) Sind 113

12

AIR (1953) Assam 1

Page 29 of

Page 30 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

is sent to the police for investigation and

report, they are to investigate in precisely the

same manner and to arrest in precisely the

same way as they would have done if their

powers had been first invoked by a first report

under S. 154, their being only this difference,

that in the one case the police embody the

result of their investigation to the Magistrate

in a report which the Magistrate proceeds to

consider under S.203, while in the other case

the police embody the result of their

investigation in what is called a challan or

charge-sheet, but which is really a police

report under S.190(b), the term challan or

charge sheet not occurring in the section, the

accused person, in any case, if arrested by the

police, being produced before the Magistrate

in the ordinary way. To hold otherwise would

be to leave the proceedings started by the

Magistrate under S.202, Criminal P.C.

unfinished, and in the air; for, he would not

have, as the law contemplates, a report of the

investigation but he would have a refusal by

the police to report as in this case, and other

and independent proceedings in the same

matter initiated by them. But the law

contemplates that proceedings, begun by the

acceptance by a Magistrate of a complaint

under S.200, Criminal P.C. and sent to the

police for investigation under Section 202,

should be terminated by the Magistrate as set

out in Section 203 and the following sections.

The proceedings are not terminated when the

Magistrate’s authority is defied, his jurisdiction

in effect denied and the order to investigate

and report disobeyed. The law does not

contemplate this, and we cannot see that this

aspect of the case has been considered in any

of the judgments which have been cited to us

in support of the case of this Court in

27 SLR 67.”

29.For the reasons already discussed above, we approve

the view taken in Sankalchand Valjibhai Patel (supra),

Page 30 of

Page 31 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

Nurmahomed Rajmahomed (supra), Mahendrasinh

Shanabhai Chauhan (supra) and Harsh Khurana

(supra) and overrule the rule taken in Bikha Moti

(supra)

and Asha Das (supra).

30.We now come to the last question whether in the

present case the Magistrate ought to have proceeded under

Section 156(3) instead of Section 202. Our answer is in the

negative. The Magistrate has given reasons, which have

been upheld by the High Court. The case has been held to

be primarily of civil nature. The accused is alleged to have

forged partnership. Whether such forgery actually took

place, whether it caused any loss to the complainant and

whether there is the requisite mens rea are the questions

which are yet to be determined. The Magistrate has not

found clear material to proceed against the accused. Even a

case for summoning has not yet been found. While a

transaction giving rise to cause of action for a civil action

may also involve a crime in which case resort to criminal

proceedings may be justified, there is judicially

acknowledged tendency in the commercial world to give

Page 31 of

Page 32 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

colour of a criminal case to a purely commercial transaction.

This Court has cautioned against such abuse.

31.In Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd.

13

, it was

observed :

“13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take

notice of a growing tendency in business circles

to convert purely civil disputes into criminal

cases. This is obviously on account of a

prevalent impression that civil law remedies are

time consuming and do not adequately protect

the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a

tendency is seen in several family disputes also,

leading to irretrievable breakdown of

marriages/families. There is also an impression

that if a person could somehow be entangled in

a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of

imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil

disputes and claims, which do not involve any

criminal offence, by applying pressure through

criminal prosecution should be deprecated and

discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.

[(2000) 2 SCC 636] this Court observed: (SCC p.

643, para 8)

“It is to be seen if a matter, which is

essentially of a civil nature, has been

given a cloak of criminal offence.

Criminal proceedings are not a short cut

of other remedies available in law.

Before issuing process a criminal court

has to exercise a great deal of caution.

For the accused it is a serious matter.

This Court has laid certain principles on

the basis of which the High Court is to

exercise its jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this

section has to be exercised to prevent

13

(2006) 6 SCC 736

Page 32 of

Page 33 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

abuse of the process of any court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

32.In Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial

Magistrate

14

, it was observed :

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal

case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot

be set into motion as a matter of course. It is

not that the complainant has to bring only

two witnesses to support his allegations in

the complaint to have the criminal law set

into motion. The order of the Magistrate

summoning the accused must reflect that he

has applied his mind to the facts of the case

and the law applicable thereto. He has to

examine the nature of allegations made in

the complaint and the evidence both oral and

documentary in support thereof and would

that be sufficient for the complainant to

succeed in bringing charge home to the

accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a

silent spectator at the time of recording of

preliminary evidence before summoning of

the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully

scrutinise the evidence brought on record

and may even himself put questions to the

complainant and his witnesses to elicit

answers to find out the truthfulness of the

allegations or otherwise and then examine if

any offence is prima facie committed by all or

any of the accused.”

33.In view of above, we find that the Magistrate and the

High Court rightly held that in the present case report under

Section 202 was the right course instead of direction under

Section 156(3). The question is answered accordingly.

14

(1998) 5 SCC 749

Page 33 of

Page 34 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

34.We may now also refer to other decisions cited at the

bar and their relevance to the questions arising in the case.

In Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa

Konjalgi & Ors.

15

, referring to earlier Judgments on the

scope of Section 202, it was observed :

“3. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra

Bose [AIR (1963) SC 1430 this Court had after

fully considering the matter observed as

follows:

“The courts have also pointed out in

these cases that what the Magistrate

has to see is whether there is

evidence in support of the

allegations of the complainant and

not whether the evidence is

sufficient to warrant a conviction.

The learned Judges in some of these

cases have been at pains to observe

that an enquiry under Section 202 is

not to be likened to a trial which can

only take place after process is

issued, and that there can be only

one trial. No doubt, as stated in sub-

section (1) of Section 202 itself, the

object of the enquiry is to ascertain

the truth or falsehood of the

complaint, but the Magistrate

making the enquiry has to do this

only with reference to the intrinsic

quality of the statements made

before him at the enquiry which

would naturally mean the complaint

itself, the statement on oath made

15

(1976) 3 SCC 736

Page 34 of

Page 35 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

by the complainant and the

statements made before him by

persons examined at the instance of

the complainant.”

Indicating the scope, ambit of Section 202 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court in

Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji

Ghadigaonker [AIR (1960) SC 1113] observed

as follows:

“Section 202 says that the

Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, for

reasons to be recorded in writing,

postpone the issue of process for

compelling the attendance of the

person complained against and

direct an inquiry for the purpose of

ascertaining the truth or falsehood of

the complaint; in other words, the

scope of an inquiry under the section

is limited to finding out the truth or

falsehood of the complaint in order

to determine the question of the

issue of process. The inquiry is for

the purpose of ascertaining the truth

or falsehood of the complaint; that

is, for ascertaining whether there is

evidence in support of the complaint

so as to justify the issue of process

and commencement of proceedings

against the person concerned. The

section does not say that a regular

trial for adjudging the guilt or

otherwise of the person complained

against should take place at that

stage; for the person complained

against can be legally called upon to

answer the accusation made against

him only when a process has issued

and he is put on trial.”

Page 35 of

Page 36 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

Same view has been taken in Mohinder Singh vs.

Gulwant Singh

16

, Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia &

Anr. vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors.

17

,

Raghuraj Singh Rousha vs. Shivam Sunadaram

Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

18

, Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prokas

Chandra Bose

19

.

In Devrapalli Lakshminaryanan Reddy & Ors. vs.

V. Narayana Reddy & Ors.

20

, National Bank of Oman

vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz & Anr.

21

, Madhao & Anr. vs.

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

22

, Rameshbhai Pandurao

Hedau vs. State of Gujarat

23

, the scheme of Section

156(3) and 202 has been discussed. It was observed that

power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the

Magistrate before taking cognizance and was in the nature

of pre-emptory reminder or intimation to the police to

exercise its plenary power of investigation beginning

Section 156 and ending with report or chargesheet under

16

(1992) 2 SCC 213

17

(2012) 10 SCC 517

18

(2009) 2 SCC 363

19

(1964) 1 SCR 639

20

(1976) 3 SCC 252

21

(2013) 2 SCC 488

22

(2013) 5 SCC 615

23

(2010) 4 SCC 185

Page 36 of

Page 37 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 applies at

post cognizance stage and the direction for investigation

was for the purpose of deciding whether there was sufficient

ground to proceed.

35.These aspects have already been discussed above and

are indeed undisputed.

36.In H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh vs. The State of

Delhi

24

, this Court explained the scope of investigation by

the police and held that investigation included power to

arrest. There is no dispute with this legal position.

37.In the light of above discussion, we are unable to find

any error in the view taken by the Magistrate and the High

Court that direction under Section 156(3) was not warranted

in the present case and the police may not be justified in

exercising power of arrest in the course of submitting report

under Section 202.

38.The questions framed for consideration stand

answered accordingly.

24

(1955) 1 SCR 1150

Page 37 of

Page 38 Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2007

39.The appeal is dismissed.

……..…………………………….J.

[ T.S. THAKUR ]

.….………………………………..J.

[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]

……..…………………………….J.

[ R. BANUMATHI ]

NEW DELHI

MARCH 16, 2015

Page 38 of