Investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC can be ordered before taking cognizance of the offence: SC

Investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC can be ordered before taking cognizance of the offence: SC

The division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah reiterated the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal versus. State (NCT of Delhi) where the court held that “while granting the order of anticipatory bail the court has to take into account of the role of the person and the likelihood of his influencing the course of the investigation and so on” and held accordingly regarding granting of anticipatory bail that “As there are serious allegations against the respondent in the case herein who is accused of a fraudulent misappropriation of amounts intended to be paid by the company who is the complainant and who is appellant herein to the farmers affected by the work of road widening being undertaken by the complainant and as the FIR sets out details of the alleged acts of fraud and misappropriation of funds, as explained earlier and having regard to the seriousness of the allegations no case for anticipatory bail can be made out.”

It is further stated that “The High Court, in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C., 1973) in the appeals by following the order of sessions court has lost sight of the gravity of the offense and erred in its decision and set aside the decision of the high court of Bombay.”

Moreover, the Hon’ble bench held that “An appellate court or a superior court can set aside the order granting bail if the court granting bail did not consider relevant factors citing the Judgement of Supreme Court in Myakala Dharmarajam versus. The State of Telangana.

Firstly, In the case herein, the appellant who is the complainant in the trial court is a company and engages in the business of infrastructure projects. The appellant herein was awarded a contract for constructing a road. The four accused who are impleaded as the respondents to the appeals herein were engaged by the appellant as its employees.

Subsequently, the appellant filed a complaint with the Powai Police Station, Mumbai on the allegation that there is the discovery of fraud committed by the respondents herein. It is alleged that the accused did not hand over the cheques to the farmers for their lands which are given for the project and got the cheques released in the names of other persons, thereby defrauding the company and misappropriating its fund and benefitting from such appropriated fund.

Further, following the order of investigation by the trial court, the accused persons named in the FIR moved the Sessions Court for the grant of anticipatory bail which was granted by the sessions court and which was further upheld by the Bombay High Court with the reason that “the mandate under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C, 1973 of examining the complainant on oath has not been fulfilled by the trial court and this act raises serious doubt about the validity of the order which has been passed under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C, 1973”

Tejaswi Goda
I'm Tejaswi Goda pursuing a B.A.LL.B course from the University College of Law, Osmania University. My subjects of interests are Human rights law, Constitutional law, Property laws, Criminal laws, Environment laws. Grabbing information, Researching and writing are activities which I'm most interested in. Reading books is my most favourite hobby. Above all working for climate change management is most prominent for me.